rock river watershed stream geomorphic assessment …landslide, inc. – rock river phase 2 stream...

Rock River Watershed Stream Geomorphic Assessment

Phase 2 Report May, 2007

Prepared by: Prepared under contract to:

Windham County Natural Resources Conservation District

28 Vernon Street Brattleboro, VT 05301

Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1

2.0 Project Overview ................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Project Partners ................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Description of Study Area ................................................................................. 2 2.3 Goals and Objectives of the Project.................................................................. 2 2.4 Reach Locator Map........................................................................................... 3

3.0 Background Information.................................................................................... 4

3.1 Geographic Setting ........................................................................................... 4 3.2 Geologic Setting................................................................................................ 4 3.3 Geomorphic Setting .......................................................................................... 4 3.4 Hydrology.......................................................................................................... 4 3.5 Ecological Setting ............................................................................................. 5

4.0 Methods............................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Fluvial Geomorphic and Habitat Assessment Protocols ................................... 5 4.2 Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) ............................................................ 5 4.3 QA/QC Summary Report .................................................................................. 6

5.0 Reach By Reach Summary ................................................................................ 7

5.1 Rock River ........................................................................................................ 7 5.2 Baker Brook .................................................................................................... 16 5.3 Marlboro Branch ............................................................................................. 17 5.4 Taft Brook ....................................................................................................... 20

6.0 Preliminary Project Identification.................................................................... 23

6.1 Analyzing River Processes ............................................................................. 23 6.1.1 Hydrologic Alterations .............................................................................. 23 6.1.2 Sediment Load Indicators ........................................................................ 24 6.1.3 Channel Slope and Depth Modifiers ........................................................ 24 6.1.4 Boundary Condition and Riparian Modifiers............................................. 24 6.1.5 Constraints to Sediment Transport and Attenuation ................................ 25 6.1.6 Existing and Reference Sediment Regimes............................................. 25 6.1.7 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................. 29

6.2 Preliminary Project Identification and Prioritization ......................................... 30

7.0 References ........................................................................................................ 36

Appendices A. Maps & Tables B. Phase 2 Data C. Data CD D. QA/QC Report

Landslide, Inc. – Rock River Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Report May, 2007

1

1.0 Executive Summary The Rock River is located in Windham County, Vermont in the towns of Newfane, Marlboro, Dover and Wardsboro. It is part of the Connecticut River Basin, located in the southeast corner of the State. The Rock River main stem is 12 miles long and is made up of three branches of nearly equal size: the main stem, Baker Brook and the Marlboro Branch. Twenty reaches were selected for Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment (SGA) following completion of the Phase 1 SGA. These reaches were selected based on Phase 1 Impact scores as well as potential conflicts with infrastructure. A total of 21 miles of river were assessed and divided into 25 segments. A Phase 2 SGA field checks Phase 1 data and updates it where necessary, providing an understanding of reference conditions, departure from reference and likely causes for this departure from reference (disequilibrium). Reference condition is the state the river would be in without human impacts occurring in the watershed. It is based on the understanding that all streams, left un-managed, will find a width, slope and pattern that are self-maintaining and will provide for sediment and flood transport in equilibrium over the long term. Due to the steep terrain and resulting narrow valleys, most of the streams in the watershed have roads along them, focusing development in the stream corridors. The combination of roads and development within the river corridor increases the volume of water that enters the channel. In addition to existing impacts, 30% percent of the Rock River assessed here, was historically straightened. When a river is straightened, the force of the water moving through it is increased, resulting in a downcutting of the river bed. The incised channel loses access to floodplain. Eventually, the banks fail and the river becomes over-widened, dissipating energy, and allowing sediment to build up again. As sediment accumulates, the channel narrows and the stream re-builds its floodplain at a lower elevation. The majority of the segments assessed are significantly over-widened and currently aggrading or undergoing planform adjustment (regaining sinuosity in response to historic straightening.) This report recommends:

1. Focusing corridor conservation and restoration efforts on the few remaining reaches that do not have roads and houses in the corridor and still have access to floodplain. These reaches are: T2.04, T2.05A, T2.05-S1.02, T2.05-S1.04 and T2.07;

2. Focus on Taft Brook (T2.11-S1.01 segments A, B & C) and Baker Brook (T2.03-S2.02), two extremely sensitive headwater streams that have numerous undersized structures (Taft), and many storm water inputs, by working with landowners and towns to replace structures and implement Best Management Practices for storm water management;

3. Work with the towns of Newfane, Marlboro and Dover to establish Fluvial Erosion Hazard zones to prevent further development in areas most at risk for erosion; and

4. Provide town officials with a list of undersized structures and recommended replacement widths so that new structures are properly sized.


2

2.0 Project Overview

2.1 Project Partners The Windham County Natural Resources Conservation District (WCNRCD), with funding from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) River Management Section, hired Landslide Inc. to perform this Phase 2 Assessment. The Windham County Regional Planning Commission was also a partner in this project.

2.2 Description of Study Area Twenty reaches were selected for Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment (SGA) following completion of the Phase 1 SGA. These reaches were selected based on Phase 1 Impact scores as well as sensitivity and potential conflicts with infrastructure. A total of 21 miles of river were assessed and were divided into 25 segments.

2.3 Goals and Objectives of the Project A Phase 2 SGA field checks Phase 1 data and updates it where necessary, providing an understanding of reference conditions, departure from reference and likely causes for this departure from reference (disequilibrium). Reference condition is that state the river would be in without human impacts occurring in the watershed. It is based on the understanding that all streams, left un-managed, will find a width, slope and pattern that are self-maintaining and will provide for sediment and flood transport in equilibrium over the long term. After analyzing reference and existing conditions, the study analyzes the degree of stream type departure and recommends and prioritizes potential restoration activities that can return the stream to equilibrium condition. In-stream habitat is assessed as well. Results of the Phase 2 Assessment can be used by interested organizations and agencies to work toward restoring equilibrium conditions in the watershed as opportunities arise. This plan is also intended to provide guidance for communities should money for restoration and conservation become available after a flood event.


3

2.4 Reach Locator Map


4

3.0 Background Information

3.1 Geographic Setting The Rock River is located in Windham County, Vermont, in the towns of Newfane, Marlboro, Dover and Wardsboro. It is part of the Connecticut River Basin and is located in the southeast corner of the State. The watershed is 57 square miles or 36,871 acres. The Rock River main stem is 12 miles long and is made up of three branches of nearly equal size: the main stem, Baker Brook and the Marlboro Branch. Like much of the rest of the state, the watershed was cleared for timber and agriculture during the latter part of the 19th century, but today is primarily forested. Land use is currently 35 percent broad leaf forest, 26 percent coniferous forest, 21 percent mixed forest, 8 percent developed land (housing and roads), 4 percent crop lands and 5 percent water. Two thirds of the watershed has steep topography but farther down in the watershed the valley broadens and some agriculture still occurs. Due to the steep terrain and resulting narrow valleys, most of the streams in the watershed have roads along them, focusing development in the stream corridors.

3.2 Geologic Setting The Rock River watershed straddles the boundary between the Southern Vermont Piedmont and the Southern Green Mountain physiographic regions. Approximately one third of the watershed is in the Piedmont while the remaing two thirds is in the eastern Green Mountain. The Southern Vermont Piedmont is comprised of the eastern rolling foothills of the main Green Mountains. Much of the metamorphic and sedimentary rocks that were orignally here have eroded away, leaving a mixture of limestone, schist and granite. The Green Mountain region is primarily metamorphic rock in its schist form with some igneous mineral deposits along the eastern flanks. It is comprised mostly of “broad high plateau(s) with few prominent peaks” (Johnson, p. 24-30).

3.3 Geomorphic Setting The Rock River watershed is naturally about one third A, B and C stream types (17, 21 and 19 square miles respectively). Phase 1 reference stream types are based on confinement, slope and sinuosity. A streams are in confined valleys, have gradients greater than 4%, are generally straight and have very little access to flood plain. B streams are still in confined valleys, though wider than A’s and they have slopes between 2 and 4% with some meanders. C type streams are in unconfined valley settings with a slope of less than 2%; they consistently meander and have good access to floodplain. The Phase 2 study uses field measurements to determine both reference and current stream types.

3.4 Hydrology None of the assessed reaches are impounded and there are no longer major dams in the Rock River watershed. In 1961 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dammed the West River upstream of the Rock River, in Townsend, Jamaica and Londonderry for flood control purposes. Most of the time, these dams are run of the river and are only regulated during high flow events. The nearest U.S. Geologic Survey gauging station is located on the West River in Jamaica, Vermont. In 1973 the Rock River, along with most of the State of Vermont, experienced a major flood


5

event. After this event, there was extensive dredging, berming and windrowing in an attempt to control channel location and reduce future flood impacts.

3.5 Ecological Setting At the heart of the watershed, the Vermont Biodiversity Project (VBP) has identified a 3,331 acre “Complimentary Landscape”, an area where a unique combination of elevation, bedrock and surficial geology and topography combine to create a uniquely diverse and as yet unprotected, type of the Vermont Landscape. This study also identified five occurrences of native vascular plants that are rare within the state (Thompson, p. 27& 29). Due to the steep terrain and resulting limited areas for development, the VBP identified the majority of this watershed as “core habitat”. Core habitat is defined as any area of forest with 100’ of forested buffer surrounding it and is essential for upland wildlife species dependent upon relatively undisturbed areas.

4.0 Methods

4.1 Fluvial Geomorphic and Habitat Assessment Protocols The State of Vermont has developed a three phase geomorphic based assessment protocol for watershed assessment. The first phase is considered the “remote sensing” level which evaluates geology, soils, slope, and watershed size to establish a provisional reference stream type for each reach. The Stream Geomorphic Assessment Tool Version 4.53 (SGAT), an ArcView extension, was used to facilitate the collection of data (Davis). The Phase 1 study also quantifies human impacts in the watershed and assigns a provisional impact rating to each reach. The Phase 1 information helps set the stage for understanding what the major watershed impacts are and can assist in identifying areas to focus additional assessment resources. The Phase 2 Assessment includes the collection of field measurements and observations to check against the Phase 1 reference stream types and impact ratings. This information can be used to identify Fluvial Erosion Hazard (FEH) zones as well as for identification of areas for different types of restoration activities. Phase 3 assessments involve detailed surveys and are only completed on those reaches that will benefit from active stream restoration activities. All Phase 2 data is located in Appendix B.

4.2 Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) The RGA is useful in evaluating current stream processes, departures from a reference condition, and stages of channel evolution for a given reach. Three separate RGA forms are used in the Phase II Assessment, one for unconfined streams, one for confined streams, and one for naturally occurring Plane-Bed streams. Parameters evaluated in the RGA are summarized as follows:

• Degree of channel degradation or incision; • Degree of channel aggradation; • Degree of channel widening; • Change in channel planform.

Refer to the VT ANR Protocols for more on the RGA (VTANR, March 2006).


6

Once the RGA is completed and the current “condition” is rated, a stage of channel evolution is identified. One of two channel evolution models is used: either the F-stage model or the D-stage model. In the F-stage model, a channel loses floodplain access by undergoing degradation due to a disturbance. This degradation is typically followed by channel widening (Stage III), then aggradation and planform adjustments (Stage IV), before then regaining stability with regard to its water and sediment loads (Stage V). In the D-stage model, aggradation, widening, and planform changes are the main adjustment processes, with degradation being limited, sometimes by resistant bed material or grade controls. The D-stage process can include moderate entrenchment and loss of bed features (Stage IIb), channel widening (Stage IIc), bed aggradation, bar formation (Stage IId), and regaining a balance similar to reference condition (Stage III). Please refer to the VT ANR Protocol Appendix C for more information on channel evolution models (VTANR, March 2006). Parameters for the RGA as well as a Rapid Habitat Assessment were scored and assigned to the correlating “condition” category describing departure from a reference condition and degree of adjustment (VTANR, April 2005) as follows:

• Reference – Reaches in dynamic equilibrium, having stream geomorphic processes and habitats found in mostly undisturbed streams.

• Good – Reaches having stream geomorphology or habitat that is slightly impacted by human or natural disturbance, showing signs of minor adjustment, but functioning for the most part.

• Fair – Reaches in moderate adjustment, having major changes in channel form, process or habitat.

• Poor – Reaches experiencing extreme adjustment or departure from their reference stream type or habitat condition.

In some cases, where a score lies at one end limit of a category, the condition category that best described the reach can be selected. A Stream Sensitivity Rating is then generated for each reach or segment according to stream type and geomorphic condition. The range of sensitivity ratings includes: very low, low, moderate, high, very high and extreme. These indicate the sensitivity of a reach or segment to ongoing disturbance or stressors.

4.3 QA/QC Summary Report To assure a high level of confidence in this Phase 2 Assessment, strict quality assurance and quality controls were followed. These procedures included both manual and automated reviews of all data by LNRP as well as by the Department of Environmental Conservation River Management Program. A copy of the QA/QC report is in Appendix D at the end of this document.


7

5.0 Reach By Reach Summary

5.1 Rock River T2.01 This reach is located at the confluence of the Rock River and the West River in a naturally semi-confined valley. The reach is dominated by series of ledge outcrops that create deep pools with steep riffles in between them. It is both a Bc by reference and currently a Bc type channel although it is moderately entrenched and very incised. The right bank has an old road bed running along its entire length that is a public right of way that facilitates access by swimmers and is likely a recently abandoned floodplain feature. This road is found on the 1893 and 1935 USGS topographic maps but is not shown on the 1954 edition. There are six steep riffles at the up-stream end of the reach which may be related to the historic dam on T08.03. When it was removed it is likely a large amount of sediment was released, causing the previously sediment starved (and thus incised) river to now be aggrading. Reference channel width is 78’ and current channel width is 115’. There are two flood chutes, ten side bars and three large islands in the reach. There is one large area of erosion on the right bank at the upstream end that is 15’ high and very active. The riparian corridor is dominated by forest land use, though camps and year round housing are encroaching at both the downstream and upstream ends. There is one bridge at the downstream end of the reach on Route 30 that is a floodplain constriction with deposition above, in and below it. This reach is in “Fair” geomorphic condition, is highly sensitive and in channel evolution stage IV-F; aggrading with historic widening and degradation. The habitat condition was rated good. Rock River Preservation Incorporated is working to raise money to purchase four acres of land along this reach from the Connecticut River Watershed Council to preserve it in perpetuity for public access. This reach is a good candidate for corridor conservation due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the corridor, the intense public use of the water resource as well as its strategic location at the mouth of the Rock River.


8

T2.02 This reach is located downstream of the village of Williamsville in a semi-confined valley and it is naturally straight. There is a gravel town road along the entire right bank, which used to connect to the road in T2.01, and the left corridor is almost entirely mowed meadow though the stream bank is vegetated along both banks. There are no channel or floodplain constrictions and no grade controls that span the entire channel. However, there is ledge across the right channel in the upstream section of the reach where the stream accesses a left bank channel during high water. Reference channel width is 77’ and current channel width is 96’. T2.02 is a C plane bed stream type by reference but is currently an F plane bed channel type that is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process. It is aggrading with historic degradation and widening and is in fair geomorphic condition. The habitat condition was rated good. As this reach aggrades, consideration should be given to restoring access to floodplain on the left bank. T2.03 This reach is in the village of Williamsville and has a popular public swimming area in the pools created by the channel spanning grade control. It is located in a narrowly confined valley that has been altered by human land use. There is a road the entire length of the left corridor with development along most of it. The reach is dominated by ledge with an over-widened section that has two parallel flood channels. Local residents report that the main flow has been in the left channel for at least the past 30 years and the river accesses both flood channels during high flow events. All of this is down stream of channel spanning grade control that had a wooden dam on it until it was “dismantled naturally after being declared unnecessary in the 1980’s” (Phase 1 SGA Report). Reference channel width for this reach is 76’ and it is currently 96’.


9

There is one bridge in this reach that is flood prone area constriction with deposition above and below it. The left bank is dominated by the Dover Road and village development while the right bank is relatively undeveloped. T2.03 is an F stream type in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process. The Phase 1 assessment identified this as a C riffle pool stream type. It is extremely sensitive and is in fair geomorphic condition. The habitat was condition was rated good. Passive river management is recommended for this reach that will naturally narrow and re-build its floodplain as it continues to adjust to the removal of the dam. Community outreach is recommended to help residents and swimmers understand the fluvial processes at work in their part of the river. T2.04 This reach is just upstream of the village of Williamsville and it is located in a broadly confined valley. During the 1990’s a dredging violation occurred in the reach. Tributary rejuvenation is occurring in two gullies along the right bank of this reach and there is one mass failure on the right bank at the downstream end. There is significant erosion on the left bank in the downstream portion of the reach. There is an old channel evident on the left bank. Reference channel width is 68’ and current channel width is 82’. There is one (covered) bridge at the upstream end of the reach that is a floodplain constriction. There is dogleg shaped channel on the left bank at the downstream end of the reach that appears to be a delta bar from Baker Brook when the Rock was dammed downstream. It appears, from analysis of 1893, 1935 and 1954 U.S.G.S. topographic maps, that this reach was straightened between 1935 and 1954, most likely as part of the dam installation. (See Appendix A.) The reach is currently an F plane bed stream type, departed from a C riffle pool by reference. The stream is currently in stage III of the F-stage channel evolution model, undergoing widening and planform adjustment. It is highly sensitive and in fair geomorphic condition. The habitat condition was good. The two gullies and one mass failure were likely triggered when the dam was removed and the water and sediment levels were lowered. This relatively undeveloped reach is strategically located just down stream of predominantly straightened reaches and just upstream of an old dam site and the village of Williamsville, making it a good candidate for a floodplain restoration and corridor protection project.


10

T2.05A Segment A is located just upstream of the covered bridge on the Dover Road and is in a broad valley. It is a C riffle pool stream type currently and by reference. It is in good geomorphic condition and is in stage I of the F-stage channel evolution model with minor widening as the dominant adjustment process. Stream sensitivity is moderate and the habitat condition was rated good. Reference channel width is 67’ and current channel width is 73’. The upstream end of this segment has some encroachment from the road and a few houses in the corridor, but otherwise, the corridor is undeveloped and forested. There are no constrictions in this segment. It has five side bars, one mid-channel bar and one transverse riffle. It appears, from analysis of 1893, 1935 and 1954 U.S.G.S. topographic maps, that this reach was almost entirely straightened between 1935 and 1954. (See Appendix A.) The upstream end of this reach is shown to be split by the road in the 1935 topographic map but the whole channel was moved to the north by the 1954 topographic map. This segment is a candidate for river corridor conservation. T2.05B This reach was segmented due to channel dimension, substrate size, and planform and slope. It is located in a narrow valley due to human caused changes to the valley width (it is up against the road). This segment is eroding on the left bank for the entire length and has rip rap along one third of right bank where the road is closest to the channel. There was an active logging operation along the top of the left bank, a steep riffle in the down stream portion of the reach and a very large mid-channel bar dominating the mid section of the reach. There are no channel constrictions in this segment. Reference channel width is 67’ and current channel width is 128’. The stream is currently an F plane bed, though it is a C type stream by reference. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution model, currently experiencing planform adjustment. It is extremely sensitive and is in fair geomorphic condition. Habitat was rated in fair condition. The


11

entire length of this reach is shown to be split by the road in the 1935 topographic map but the whole channel was moved to the north by the 1954 topographic map. (See Appendix A.) Because this segment has the first bend in 2,300’of river, it is the repository of a lot of sediment and energy dissipation. Since it will continue to be rip-rapped for the road, increasing sediment and flood attenuation areas upstream of it will alleviate pressure off of it T2.05C This is the upstream segment of T2.05 and ends just upstream of the confluence with the Marlboro Branch. The right bank is dominated by the road. There is one bridge that is a floodplain constriction with deposition below and scour above it. Reference channel width is 67’ and current channel width is 73’. The segment is a C riffle pool stream type currently and by reference. It is in good geomorphic condition and is in stage I of the F-stage channel evolution model with minor degradation and widening as the dominant adjustment processes. Stream sensitivity is moderate and the habitat condition was rated good. The left bank of this segment is critical as floodplain that it accesses during high flow events and it should be conserved. T2.06A This reach was segmented due to channel dimension, substrate size and depositional features. It is located in a narrowly confined valley with no human caused changes to the valley width. It is extremely over-widened, with a reference channel width of 50’ and current channel width is 84’. There are no grade controls or constrictions on this reach. The left corridor is predominantly forested while the right corridor is dominated by residences. There are three steep riffles and one flood chute present in the reach.


12

It is currently an F plane bed stream type, departed from a reference C plane bed stream type. It is in channel evolution stage IV of the F-stage process. Its geomorphic condition is fair and its sensitivity is extreme. It is currently in planform adjustment and aggrading. The habitat was rated in fair condition. There are berms on both banks near the confluence with the Marlboro Branch that could be removed if that would provide floodplain access. T2.06B This reach was segmented due to channel dimension and substrate size. It is located in a narrowly confined valley with human caused changes to the valley width. Reference channel width is 50’ and the current channel width is 65’. There are no grade controls or channel constrictions on this reach. The left corridor is predominantly forested while the right corridor is dominated by residences. Three flood chutes were noted in the segment. There is rip-rap in both the upstream and down stream portions of the reach. The stream is currently a B plane bed stream type, departed from a reference C stream type due to moderate entrenchment. It is moderately sensitive and in good geomorphic condition. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process and is undergoing minor aggradation. Habitat was assessed in fair condition. Explore removing berms to provide floodplain access. T2.07 This reach runs along the Dover Road beginning at Stratton Hill Road and continuing .7 miles up stream. It is located in a broad valley and has one bridge that is not currently in use that is a channel constriction with deposition below and scour above and below. There are multiple mid, point and side bars in the channel, five flood chutes and one active stream crossing just upstream of the defunct bridge. Reference channel width is 49’ and the current channel width is 58’.


13

C riffle-pool by reference, this stream is currently an F plane bed in fair geomorphic condition. Its stream sensitivity is very high and it is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process. Habitat was assessed in fair condition as well. Historically, this reach functioned as a sediment storage and flood attenuation asset, as do all C type streams, but it has degraded from a C to an F type stream. The multiple flood chutes indicate planform adjustment. Some time between 1935 and 1954 the road and river were moved south to their present location. This reach is a critical attenuation asset for up and down stream reaches. If the structure were replaced (it accesses a camp that is in use) and the corridor conserved, it would narrow and re-build floodplain in the near term. T2.08 A short reach located along the north side of the Dover Road just east of Brookside in a narrowly confined valley. There are multiple bed features, one flood chute and some springs and wetlands. There is ledge at the downstream end of the reach. Reference channel width is 48’ and current channel width is 51’. The town road used to cross the downstream end of this reach to continue along the left bank of the river. At some point between 1935 and 1954 the current road was put in on the south side of the river. The river appears to be closer to its original planform after this adjustment. This reach is a reference B step-pool but it is currently a B plane bed due to active aggradation. It is in fair geomorphic condition and highly sensitive. Habitat was rated fair as well. This reach is a candidate for corridor conservation of the of the right corridor. T2.09 This reach is located immediately downstream of Brookside in a narrowly confined valley that is reduced in width because of the Dover Road. Twenty-seven percent of left bank is rip-rapped for the Dover Road. There are two mass failures on the right bank of the river, the upstream one being quite large. According to local resident and owner of


14

T2.11, Merrill Mundell, this failure (slide) started after the 1938 hurricane and it turns the river gray after big rain events. Immediately downstream of the large mass failure is a significant flood chute on the right bank. At the downstream end of this reach there is an old bridge abutment on the right bank and some historic berming also on the right bank associated with the old bridge and road location. Just upstream of this there is right bank berming that was left bank berming from an old channel. Reference channel width is 47’ and current channel width is 64’. This reach is B Plane Bed by reference as well as currently. It is aggrading with historic widening and is in fair geomorphic condition. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution model and the habitat condition is fair. This reach is a candidate for corridor conservation of the right corridor. T2.10 This reach starts in Brookside and ends just upstream of the Adam’s Brook confluence. It is located in a narrowly confined valley and the Dover Road runs along the entire length of the left bank. The left and right banks are 25% rip-rapped and there are two mass failures on the right bank. One thousand feet of the reach are straightened and there are multiple point and side bars present in the channel. Reference channel width is 40’ and current channel width is 52’. The stream is a B step-pool by reference but is currently an F step-pool. It is in stage IV of the F- stage channel evolution model and is in fair geomorphic condition. It is undergoing planform adjustment with historic degradation. The habitat was found to be in good condition. This reach is a candidate for corridor conservation. T2.11 This reach runs from the confluence with Adam’s Brook upstream to East Dover at the confluence with Taft Brook along the Dover Road. It is located in a narrowly confined valley and there are two gorges (one at either end of the reach) with numerous grade controls associated with the downstream gorge. The downstream gorge is a popular swimming area that is


15

made of a unique conglomerate rock that draws geology students from around the country (Merrill Mundell, Landowner interview). At the downstream end of the reach there is one mass failure and one gully starting, both on the left bank. The mass failure extends all the way up to the road and has recently been treated with grading, erosion control fabric and seeding. The majority of this reach is well away from the road which makes it unique for the Rock River. There are numerous mid, point, side and diagonal bars throughout the reach and there is one human made channel constriction (a culvert) at the upstream end. The upstream gorge was the site of an old mill that is currently fenced off. There is a new box culvert that is 2’ narrower than reference bankful at the upstream end of the reach, near the confluence with Taft Brook. It appears, from historic topographic maps, that the town road used to be adjacent to the left bank. This feature was identified as an old logging road in the field. The reference channel width is 30’and the current channel width is 33’. The stream is a B plane bed by reference and is currently a B. It is in stage I of the F-stage channel evolution process and its geomorphic condition is good. It is highly sensitive and the habitat condition is good. This reach is a strong candidate for corridor conservation due to the undeveloped nature of the corridor and the fantastic scientific and recreational features of the downstream gorge area. T2.12 This reach runs from East Dover upstream to Goose City and is located in a naturally narrowly confined valley that also has a road in it. There are numerous mid, point, side and diagonal bars as well as two islands and seven flood chutes throughout this reach. It is 17% bermed. The road is in the river corridor for almost half of its length. There are three bridges in this reach, one of which is a minor (< 1’) channel constriction, and the other two are floodplain constrictions. There are three mass failures and two steep riffles. This is the first reach on the main stem with a large amount of woody debris (19 pieces). There are numerous seasonal camps in the corridor, one of which was being accessed by a new ford while we were surveying the stream. Reference channel width is 26’ and current channel width is 31’. At some time between 1899 and 1954 the road was moved from crossing this reach twice near the middle of it to staying entirely on the north side of it. (See Appendix A.) Evidence of


16

channel moving, significant amounts of berming and extreme incision indicate that much of this reach was probably straightened at some point. This reach is a B plane bed by reference but is currently moderately entrenched and very incised, making it an F plane bed. It has undergone historic degradation and is presently in planform adjustment. The geomorphic condition is fair and it is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process. The habitat condition is also fair. This reach would benefit from the establishment of a Fluvial Erosion Hazard Zone (FEH) to prevent further encroachments into the corridor and from working with landowners and the town to implement best management practices as new camps and year round residences are built.

5.2 Baker Brook T2.03-S2.01 This reach is located in a semi-confined valley that is altered due to the presence of a road. There are multiple mid, point, side and diagonal bars throughout the reach and there are two channel spanning grade controls in the middle of the reach. There are two bridges in this reach, neither of them are constrictions. This reach is in the process of re-building active floodplain and there are numerous old terraces along the right bank. There is a lot of placed rock in the channel, possibly dating from the 1973 flood. It would be helpful to research whether the road bed was raised along this reach. The stream was typed a B plane-bed in the Phase 1 Assessment. It is currently an F plane bed due to historic bed degradation and is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process. The reference channel width is 39’and the current channel width is 38’. It is in fair geomorphic condition and extremely sensitive due to the stream type departure. It is currently aggrading and in planform adjustment. The habitat was rated in good condition. This reach is a candidate for corridor conservation and would benefit from the establishment of a Fluvial Erosion Hazard Zone (FEH).


17

T2.03-S2.02 This reach is located in a narrowly confined valley that is even narrower due to the presence of a road along the entire length of the stream. There is one bridge in the reach that is a channel constriction as well as old abutments that are also channel constricting. Both structures have deposition above them. There are nine mid, one point, sixteen side and twelve diagonal bars in this segment as well as six flood chutes and eight storm water inputs. It would be helpful to research whether the road bed was raised along this reach. The reference channel width is 37’and the current channel width is 43’. This reach is a C riffle pool by reference but is currently an F riffle pool due to historic degradation (entrenchment) and widening. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution model is extremely sensitive (due to the stream type departure) and in fair geomorphic condition. The habitat condition was good. Restoration alternatives include: Exploring the removal of old abutments to see if floodplain access will be improved; working with towns and landowners on implementing BMP’s for storm water management; conserving the corridor as this reach is an important sediment attenuation asset.

5.3 Marlboro Branch T2.05-S1.01 The first reach of the Marlboro Branch begins in the village of South Newfane and continues south four tenths of a mile until the stream bends sharply west. It is located in a narrowly confined valley with Augerhole Road encroaching along two thirds of the right corridor. There is one bridge at the downstream end of the reach on the Dover Road that is a floodplain constriction. There is one flood chute, one transverse riffle and multiple point and side bars in the reach. There was an old channel in the left corridor. Reference channel width is 46’ and current channel width is 65’.


18

The left bank vegetation was dominated by knotweed and the right bank was either ledge or rip-rap associated with the road. The reference channel width is 46’ and the current width is 65’. The left corridor had abundant poison ivy and invasive burning bush (Euonymus alatus). Burning bush “is a threat to woodland areas, fields, and coastal scrubland because it out competes native species” (The Nature Conservancy web page). A review of the historic topographic maps (see Appendix A) reveals that some time between 1935 and 1954 the river was moved toward the right valley wall in this reach. An old channel was noted near the left valley wall during the assessment. The reach is C riffle pool by reference and is currently a C plane bed due to aggradation. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process with the dominant adjustment process being aggradation due to the loss of step-pool bed features. The stream is in fair geomorphic condition and highly sensitive. Habitat was rated fair. This reach is a good candidate for management of invasive species that were otherwise rarely noted in the watershed and for corridor conservation due to the existing floodplain access along the right bank and the potential for it along the left bank. T2.05-S1.02 Located in the towns of Newfane and Marlboro, this reach is 1.6 miles long and is in a broad valley type. It is at the western base of the valley and there are numerous historic channels evident, many point bars and flood chutes and it has 3,288’ of erosion and over 1,800’ of old berms on one bank. There are multiple mass failures on the left bank and an active stream ford crosses the channel. The entire length of it has been straightened. The reference channel width is 46’ and the current channel width is 70’. A review of the historic topographic maps (see Appendix A) reveals that some time between 1935 and 1954 the river was moved toward the left valley wall in this reach. An old channel was noted near the left valley wall in some places during the assessment. The stream is a C riffle pool type of stream by reference and is currently moderately entrenched and incised to an F stream type. It is in stage III of the F-stage channel evolution process with planform being the dominant adjustment process. Its geomorphic condition is fair and sensitivity is very high. The habitat condition was good. This stream is regaining sinuosity in response to wholesale relocation of the channel. This reach is a good candidate for passive geomorphic restoration as the channel is naturally re-creating sinuosity, it still has access to floodplain, there is limited development in the corridor and there is potential for increasing floodplain access through the removal of berms.


19

T2.05-S1.03 This reach begins at Gulf Brook and continues just past the junction of Augerhole Road and Lahar Road. It is located in a semi-confined valley with the left corridor being dominated by the Augerhole Road. The reach has approximately 3,800 of both left and right bank erosion and has over 800’ of berming on the left or right bank. The right corridor is forested while the left corridor is dominated by the road. There are two bridges in the reach, both of which are floodplain constrictions. There are numerous mid, point, and side bars in the reach as well as five diagonal bars and five steep riffles. The reference channel width is 42’ and the current channel width is 53’. As with the two previous reaches on the Marlboro Branch, there is evidence that the river was moved and straightened between 1935 and 1954. Please see Appendix A for more information. The reach is a C riffle pool by reference but is currently entrenched and incised, making it an F riffle pool. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution model with aggradation and planform adjustment being the current dominant adjustment processes. It is in fair geomorphic condition and the habitat condition is good. This reach used to provide sediment and flood storage, but it has been converted to a transport reach due to road and valley wall constrictions. Conservation of the up and down stream reaches will relieve pressure on it. T2.05-S1.04 This reach is located along Augerhole Road from Lahar Road upstream to just after Adam’s Brook joins the Marlboro Branch. It is a half a mile long and in a very broad valley type, though the valley narrows in the middle of the reach. There is 1,600’ of berming and 780’ of erosion along the reach. There is one bridge at the downstream end of the reach that is both a channel and floodplain constriction. The reference channel width is 38’ and the current channel width is 56’. The reach is C riffle pool both by reference and currently. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process and is in good


20

geomorphic condition with minor planform being the dominant adjustment process. The habitat was also rated in good condition. This reach is a good candidate for active restoration to remove berms that are restricting access to floodplain and for corridor conservation as it is a sediment and flood attenuation asset. T2.05-S1.05 This reach begins just past the confluence with Adam's Brook, and runs 1.1 miles to just past the confluence with Worden Brook. It is located in a semi-confined valley and is dominated by ledge on the right bank and road encroachment along the left bank. There are abundant springs and seeps and some wetlands located along this reach. Eleven-hundred feet of erosion are along the left bank, numerous mid, point and side bars, four flood chutes and six steep riffles in the channel. The reference channel width is 36’ and the current channel width is 36’. The reach is a B step-pool currently and by reference. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution model and its geomorphic condition is good. It is moderately sensitive and has good habitat. Removing berms where floodplain access would be improved is recommended for this reach.

5.4 Taft Brook T2.11-S1.01A This segment begins in East Dover and continues west until a series of channel spanning grade controls and two debris jams cause an elevation of the bed and accumulation of fine sediments upstream, reducing the particle size and changing the planform and slope of the channel to create a segment break. This reach is located in a narrowly confined valley that is narrower due to the presence of a road. There are six structures in this reach, only one of which is not a channel constriction. They all have deposition above them and


21

all but one has deposition below and it has scour below. There are 12 mid channel, 22 point and 55 side bars in this reach alone and 22 pieces of large woody debris. This segment has 1,200’ of erosion on both the right and left banks. There are three channel spanning natural grade controls in this segment as well. It is 21% rip-rapped along the left bank. The reference channel width is 15’ and the current channel width is 18’. This reach was originally typed as an A step pool in the Phase 1 assessment. After this assessment the reference stream type was changed to B riffle pool. This segment is currently an F riffle pool due to historic degradation and incision. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process is undergoing planform adjustment and the geomorphic condition is fair. It is extremely sensitive and the habitat condition is also fair. Working with landowners to replace undersized structures and implementing BMP’s for storm water management is recommended for this reach. T2.11-S1.01B This reach was segmented from the other two due to smaller substrate size, a broad valley confinement and a different stream type. There was noticeably less erosion in this segment than in A and C, although there is one very active eroding site at the upstream end of it in a horse pasture. There is only one structure in this segment and it is not channel constricting, although there is deposition above and below it. There is an active animal crossing at the same horse farm where the sandy banks are eroding. There was evidence of gravel removal at one site in this reach and there are three mass failures. The reference channel width is 15’ and the current channel width is 25’. This reach was originally typed as an A step pool in the Phase 1 assessment. After this assessment the reference stream type was changed to B riffle pool. This segment is currently a Cb plane bed due to current aggradation. It is in stage III of the F-stage channel evolution process and the dominant adjustment process is aggradation. It is very highly sensitive and the geomorphic condition is fair. The habitat is also in fair condition. This segment is providing much needed sediment attenuation in an otherwise transport area. Corridor conservation, including replanting the banks at the horse farm is recommended.


22

T2.11-S1.01C This segment is located in a narrowly confined valley that is narrower due to the presence of a road. The one bridge and two culverts in this reach are all channel constrictions. The two culverts both have deposition above and below them. The bridge did not have evidence of deposition. There are 17 mid channel, 10 point and 13 side bars in this reach alone and 22 pieces of large woody debris. This segment has multiple mass failures and two flood chutes. There is one channel spanning natural grade control in this segment as well. The reference channel width is 15’ and the current channel width is 18’. This reach was originally typed as an A step pool in the Phase 1 assessment. After this assessment the reference stream type was changed to B riffle pool. This segment is currently an F riffle pool due to historic degradation. It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel evolution process is undergoing planform adjustment and the geomorphic condition is fair. It is extremely sensitive and the habitat condition is also fair. Working with landowners to replace undersized structures and implement BMP’s for storm water management is recommended for this reach.


23

6.0 Preliminary Project Identification

6.1 Analyzing River Processes The goal of geomorphologically based river restoration is to reduce conflicts between human built infrastructure and rivers by re-establishing natural water and sediment relations (equilibrium) to the greatest extent possible. The Phase 1 and 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessments determine natural equilibrium (reference) and current stream types (departure from reference) to inform this planning process. This section of the report summarizes the different stressors and constraints in the watershed and prioritizes reaches for restoration at the reach and watershed scale. Further work is necessary to prioritize projects from a social perspective.

6.1.1 Hydrologic Alterations The volume and rate at which water and sediment flow through a stream system, combined with the resistance of the bed material, work together to form the channel over the long-term life of a river. Alterations to this natural “hydrologic regime” can push a stream into disequilibrium, leading to increased erosion hazards. Hydrologic stressors and physical constraints that impact the volume and rate of water and sediment moving through the stream system were analyzed to aid in our understanding of current channel adjustment processes. Among the things that can affect the hydrology of a watershed are dams, loss of wetlands, deforestation, development and related increases in storm water runoff, and ditching related to roads, farm fields and skid ruts (VT DEC Phase 2 Protocols). The Rock River Watershed has experienced alterations to its hydrologic regime in the form of a run of the river dam that was in place on T2.03 in the village of Williamsville from sometime between 1935 and 1954 until the mid-1980’s when it came out. All of the reaches downstream and immediately upstream of this dam were affected by its presence and now by its removal. Deforestation has affected most of the state of Vermont, with almost complete clearing occurring by the end of the 19th century and re-forestation to 75% forest cover by the end of the 20th century. It is likely that the Rock River is still re-bounding from the loss and the gradual re-growth of forest cover, and some of the historic incision and subsequent widening found in the watershed may be related to the increased flows resulting from the loss of trees. Development greater than 10% is considered to alter the hydrologic cycle in a watershed. All of the assessed reaches have between five and ten percent developed lands. Seven of the sub-watersheds have between 10 and 15% developed land and three, including Taft Brook, have between 15 and 25% developed lands. Within the river corridor, there are 1.1 miles of development on both sides of the assessed reaches and 3.4 miles on one side for a total of 4.4 miles of development or 21% of the assessed corridors. Road and road density also affect the timing and amount of water runoff in a watershed. Of the 21 river miles assessed, 12.1 miles have a road on one side within the corridor and 3.3 miles have a road on both sides within the corridor. Storm water inputs are related to development and road construction. There were only 19 storm water inputs identified throughout the watershed,


24

however, those inputs are concentrated on three reaches high up in the watershed: 8 on T2.03-S2.02 (Baker); 7 on T2.11S1.01 (Taft); and 4 on T2.05-S1.05 (Marlboro Branch).

6.1.2 Sediment Load Indicators Erosion is a factor influencing the sediment regimes and adjustment processes on-going in the watershed. Changes to the natural flow of sediment can lead to channel aggradation or degradation. Stream bank erosion can be a major contributor to sediment load and is the result of either vertical or horizontal adjustments in the stream slope and planform. The Phase 2 Assessment quantifies on-going erosion impacts by measuring eroding banks and inventorying gullies, dams, steep riffles, mass failures and channel bars. Current erosion is found on 2.3 miles (11%) of the right banks and 2.1 miles (10%) of the left banks, with the Marlboro Branch having the highest percentages overall. Mass failures can be related to erosion and are a significant source of sediment. There were 28 mass failures inventoried on 13 different segments. Nearly half of them (12) are on Taft Brook and three are on the second reach of the Marlboro Branch, which was straightened up against the valley wall. There are also three on T2.12. Flood chutes and avulsions are an indication that the river is undergoing planform adjustment and also contribute to sediment load. There are 57 flood chutes and 2 avulsions in the assessed area: Seven each on T2.12, T2.03-S2.01 & 02 and five on T2.07. There are two flood chutes on each segment of T2.11-S1.01 (Taft) and three on T2.05-S1.05. There is one avulsion each on T2.05-S1.02 and T2.03-S2.02.

6.1.3 Channel Slope and Depth Modifiers Erosion and mass failures can be triggered by incision that is the result of changes within the stream corridor and watershed including channel straightening, corridor encroachments, hard armoring, berming and channel constrictions. These impacts directly or indirectly affect channel slope and depth. Natural channel spanning grade control also affects channel depth by arresting degradation. Thirty percent of the assessed reaches were historically straightened (6.3 miles out of 21 miles assessed). Straightening a river concentrates flow, reduces bed resistance, and causes incision (downcutting) leading to widening. Along with straightening and channelization, berms and hard armoring were common river management practices in the past. Of the assessed reaches, 2.3 miles (11%) of the banks are bermed and 2.1 miles of the left bank and .9 miles of the right bank are rip-rapped. One or both banks have 3.6 miles of development and 12.8 miles of either or both bank have an encroachment (mostly roads).

6.1.4 Boundary Condition and Riparian Modifiers Riparian buffers provide many important functions for streams including: increased bank stability, reduction of overland surface water flow and shading the channel to reduce water temperatures. The following table summarizes the total number of different corridor buffer


25

widths in the watershed. This parameter is directly correlated to the large amount of roads within the stream corridor.

Right Buffer Width Total Segments Left Buffer Width Total Segments >100 12 >100 8 26-50 4 26-50 9 51-100 4 51-100 5 5-25 5 5-25 3 Grand Total 25 Grand Total 25

6.1.5 Constraints to Sediment Transport and Attenuation Natural and human built constraints to sediment transport and attenuation (storage) exist throughout the watershed. These are separated into vertical constraints which keep the bed of the river from degrading and lateral constraints, which keep the river from moving sideways. Natural vertical constraints are channel spanning grade control and in this watershed, manmade constraints are culverts. Lateral constraints may be ledge or human built infrastructure such as roads and development. There numerous bridges and culverts throughout the watershed. A Bridge and Culvert Assessment was completed on 29 structures that had abutments. There were a number of mostly pedestrian bridges to camps that were not assessed, but are included in the GIS theme of bridges and culverts. There are 11 bridges and culverts that are channel constrictions (8 of these on TAFT Brook). There are four reaches with channel constrictions: T2.07, T2.11, T2.11-S1.01 and T2.12. Channel constrictions can cause changes in the sediment regime – most notably increased deposition above them and a decrease in sediment supply below them. There are 25 bridges and culverts that are flood prone area constrictions (including the channel constrictions mentioned above). Reductions in the flood prone area increase flooding and sediment supply to downstream reaches during large flood events and can lead to channel degradation.

6.1.6 Existing and Reference Sediment Regimes All of the modifiers, alterations and constraints analyzed above affect the current ability of the stream to store and move sediment. The Vermont DEC River Management Section has developed five different sediment regime descriptors to summarize reference and existing sediment transport capacity. These categories allow for a comparison of reference condition and existing sediment transport capacity and current channel adjustment, informing restoration project selection. Streams that are in reference sediment regime fall into one of two categories: Transport and Coarse Equilibrium/Fine Deposition. Transport streams are those streams that are high gradient, naturally confined and have bedrock, boulder or cobble substrates. Coarse Equilibrium/Fine Deposition are streams that are in unconfined valleys and naturally provide areas for flood and sediment storage through flood plain access. Streams that are undergoing channel evolution will fall into one of the following three categories: Confined Source and Transport, Unconfined


26

Source and Transport and Fine Source and Transport. Confined Source and Transport are high gradient streams that have more erodable bed material and may be experiencing channel degradation and are located in naturally confined valley types. Unconfined Source and Transport are streams that have more erodable bed material, are located in unconfined valley settings and have experienced bank armoring and/or channel straightening. Finally, there are streams that are Fine Source and Transport/Coarse Deposition. These streams are located in unconfined valley settings with erodable bed material undergoing widening or planform adjustment. The latter two sediment regime types have been converted from natural Coarse Equilibrium/Fine Deposition type streams to transport type streams. Streams that have been converted from Coarse Equilibrium/Fine Deposition to transport reduce sediment and flood attenuation capacity on that reach as well as watershed wide. This increases flood and erosion hazards downstream. Of the 25 segments assessed, 11 are transport (B type) streams by reference. There are 9 segments that have been converted to transport. Three of these converted streams have the potential to be restored to Coarse Equilibrium/Fine Deposition type streams. The following two maps represent reference and current sediment regimes in the Rock River Watershed.


27


28


29

6.1.7 Sensitivity Analysis The Vermont DEC River management Section has developed a five level sensitivity rating for streams based on current stream type and geomorphic condition. The rating scale is low, moderate, high, very high, and extreme. Sensitivity ratings are based on how rapidly a given stream type is expected to adjust (move laterally or horizontally) given its current geomorphic condition. The following map represents sensitivity ratings throughout the watershed.


30

Sensitivity ratings assist in restoration project selection by identifying areas where rapid channel planform adjustment may occur in the presence of valuable human-built infrastructure. The following table prioritizes reaches for restoration based on sensitivity, current adjustment and potential threats to infrastructure. The results were incorporated into project identification tables in the next section.

River Segment Sensitivity Channel Evolution Dominant Adjusment PrioritizationT02.01- High IV Aggradation LowT02.02- Very High IV Aggradation MediumT02.03- Extreme IV Planform/Aggradation HighT02.04- High III Planform/Widening LowT02.05A Moderate I Minor Degradation/WideningLowT02.05B Extreme IV Planform HighT02.05C Moderate I Minor Degradation/WideningMediumT02.05-S1.01- High IV Aggradation MediumT02.05-S1.02- Very High III Widening HighT02.05-S1.03- High IV Planform/Widening HighT02.05-S1.04- High IV Minor Planform LowT02.05-S1.05- Moderate IV Planform LowT02.06A Extreme IV Planform HighT02.06B Moderate IV Aggradation LowT02.07- Very High IV Planform MediumT02.08- High IV Aggradation MediumT02.09- High IV Aggradation MediumT02.10- Extreme IV Planform HighT02.11- High IV Aggradation LowT02.11-S1.01A Extreme IV Planform HighT02.11-S1.01B Very High IV Aggradation MediumT02.11-S1.01C Extreme IV Planform HighT02.12- Extreme IV Planform HighT2.03-S2.01- Extreme IV Aggradation MediumT2.03-S2.02- Extreme IV Aggradation Medium

Sensitivity Analysis

6.2 Preliminary Project Identification and Prioritization The Vermont DEC River Management Section has developed a step wise procedure for identifying and prioritizing restoration projects. The categories of projects are: 1. Protect River Corridors; 2. Plant Stream Buffers; 3. Stabilize Stream Banks; 4. Arrest Head Cuts; 5. Remove Berms; 6. Remove or Replace Structures; 7 Restore Incised Reach; and 8. Restore Aggraded Reach. The tables below provide a foundation for continued planning and restoration efforts. The first table identifies potential projects by reach and prioritizes them (highest priority in yellow). The second table examines the highest priority reaches in more detail, describing stressors and constraints and technical feasibility of the projects.


31

River Segment Project Type R

each

Pr

iori

ty

Wat

ersh

ed

Prio

rity

Inde

pend

ent

of R

each

R

esto

ratio

n

Next Steps & Other Project Notes

T02.01- Corridor Conservation Low High Yes

Support Rock River Conservation Inc. -- This reach is very important to the community for recreation and is experiencing increasing development.

T02.02-Restore floodplain access on left bank. High Medium Yes Talk with left bank landowners.

T02.03- Outreach & Education Medium Medium Yes

Passive river management is recommended for this reach that will naturally narrow and re-build its floodplain as it continues to adjust to the removal of the dam. Community outreach is recommended to help residents and swimmers understand the fluvial processes at work in their part of the river.

T02.04-

Corridor Conservation - possible restoration of channel to old bed. High High Yes

Talk with landowners & explore re-locating the stream to the old channel -- This reach is an important sediment attenuation asset with no vertical or lateral constraints.

T02.05A Corridor Conservation High High Yes

Talk with landonwers - This reach is an important sediment attenuation asset with no vertical or lateral constraints.

T02.05B None.

The river was historically on the other side of the road here - it will probably require on-going maintenance of rip-rap and continued management as a converted transport stream.

T02.05CCorridor Conservation (Left bank only) High Medium Yes Talk with landowners.

T02.05-S1.01-Corridor Conservation (Left bank only) High High Yes Talk with landowners.Manage invaisive species High High Yes Talk with landonwers.

Project Identification and Prioritization


32


each

Pri

ority

Wat

ersh

ed

Prio

rity

Inde

pend

ent o

f R

each

Res

tora

tion


T02.05-S1.02-Corridor Conservation & limited berm removal. High High No

This reach has been 100% straightened. Further site assesment is required to determine if it can stay in this general location over the long term and/or to explore options for increasing sinuosity. It is an important sediment attenuation asset with no vertical or lateral constraints. Talk with landowners.

T02.05-S1.03- None.

Conservation of up and down stream reaches as sediment attenuation assets will relieve pressure from this converted transport reach.

T02.05-S1.04- Corridor Conservation High High Yes

This reach is an important sediment attenuation asset with no vertical or lateral constraints and could help take pressure off of T2.05-S1.03.Talk with landowners.

Replace Structure (bridge) Medium Low Yes Talk with Town.

Berm Removal Medium Medium YesRe-examine berms to see if they are impeding floodplain access.

T02.05-S1.05- Berm Removal Medium Low YesRe-examine berms to see if they are impeding floodplain access.

T02.06A Berm Removal - Low Low Yes

Berms on both sides of stream at confluence with Marlboro Branch. Other berms u/s not protecting infrasture. Re-examine berms to see if they are impeding floodplain access.

T02.06B Berm Removal Medium Low YesRe-examine berms to see if they are impeding floodplain access.

T02.07- Corridor Conservation Medium High Yes

This reach is an important sediment attenuation asset with no vertical and limited lateral constraints. Talk with landowners.


33


each

Pri

ority

Wat

ersh

ed

Prio

rity

Inde

pend

ent o

f R

each

Res

tora

tion


T02.07-Replace/Remove Structure (bridge) High High Yes Talk with landowners.

Berm Removal Medium Medium Yes Talk with landowners.

T02.08-Corridor Conservation (Right Bank) Low Low Yes Talk with landowners.

T02.09-Corridor Conservation (Right Bank) Medium Low Yes Talk with landowners.

T02.10-Corridor Conservation (Right Bank) Medium Low Yes Talk with landowners.

T02.11- Corridor Conservation Low High Yes Talk with landonwer.

T02.11-Replace Structure (new box culvert) Low Low Yes Talk with Town.

T02.11-S1.01A Replace Structures (5!) High Medium Yes Talk with town and landowners.

T02.11-S1.01B Replace Structure Medium Low Yes Work with town.

T02.11-S1.01B

Corridor conservation with buffer establishment at horse farm. High High N/A Work with landowners

T02.11-S1.01CReplace Structures (2 w/abutments) High Medium Yes Work with town.

T02.11-S1.01C

Best Management Practices (stormwater inputs) for all of Taft High High Yes Work with towns and landowners.

T02.12-Replace Structure (second one) High Medium Yes Work with town.

T2.03-S2.01-Corridor Conservation (Right Bank) Medium Low Yes Talk with landowners.

T2.03-S2.02- Berm Removal Low Low YesRe-examine berms to see if they are impeding floodplain access.

Best Management Practices (stormwater management) High High Yes

Work with towns to establish BMP's for stormwater in the watershed.

Corridor Conservation (Right Bank) High High Yes Talk with landowners.

Remove old abutments High Medium Yes

Determine if they are limiting floodplain access; talk with landonwers.


34

Project #Reach/Segment Condition/Sensitivity

Site Description including Stressors and Constraints Project or Strategy Description

1 T02.01-Confined Source & TransportHigh

2 T02.04-Fine Source & TransportHigh

3 T02.05ACoarse Equilibrium/Fine Dep.Moderate

4 T02.05-S1.01-Coarse Equilibrium/Fine Dep.High

5 T02.05-S1.02-Fine Source & TransportVery High

6 T02.05-S1.04-Coarse Equilibrium/Fine Dep.High

High priority for flood plain access.

Hydrologic stressors are moderate, sediment increase is moderate, stream power increased through berming, no vertical or lateral constraints, important sediment attenuation asset.

Corridor Conservation. Improving this reach's ability to store sediment and flood water could reduce pressure on d/s reach.

High priority due to u/s relationship from T2.05-S1.03, a converted transport reach.

High priority for sediement and flood water attenuation. Strategic location.

Hydrologic stressors are moderate, sediment increase is high, stream power increased through straightening, boundary resistance decreased b/c of rb buffer, no vertical or lateral constraints, important sediment attenuation reach.

Corridor Conservation, This reach has been 100% straightened. Further site assesment is required to determine if it can stay in this general location over the long term and/or to explore options for increasing sinuosity and removing berms.

Very High priority due to length, lack of constraints, current planform adjustment and historic straightening.

Hydrologic stressors are moderate, sediment increase is low, stream power is not increased, boundary resistance increased b/c of rb ledge, no vertical constraints, ledge is a lateral constraint.

Corridor conservation to protect floodplain access on left bank.

Technical Feasibility & Priority

Hydrologic stressors are moderate, sediment increase is low, stream power increased through straightening, boundary resistance decreased b/c of buffer, no vertial or lateral constraints, important sediment attenuation reach.

Corridor Conservation. High priority for sediment and flood water attenuation.

Hydrologic stressors are moderate, sediment increase is high, no reach modification stressors, no vertical or lateral constraints, important sediment attenuation reach.

Corridor Conservation with possible restoration to old channel to move channel away from valley wall and provide floodplain access. Further assessment necessary.

Hydrologic stressors are moderate, sediment increase is moderate, no reach modification stressors, no vertial or lateral constraints, natural transport.

Corridor Conservation - support and expand efforts of Rock River Conservation Inc.

Project is on-going. High priority for social benefit.

Rock River Corridor PlanningProject and Strategy Summary Table


35

Project #Reach/Segment Condition/Sensitivity

Site Description including Stressors and Constraints Project or Strategy Description Technical Feasibility & Priority

7 T02.07-Fine Source & TransportVery High

8 T02.11-Confined Source & TransportHigh

9 T02.11-S1.01AConfined Source & TransportExtreme

10 T02.11-S1.01BFine Source & TransportVery High

11 T02.11-S1.01CConfined Source & TransportExtreme

12 T2.03-S2.02Fine Source & TransportExtreme

Hydrologic stressors are high, sediment increase is high,increase in stream power and no increase in boundary resistance, no vertical constraints, road is a lateral constraint converted to transport.

Best management practices with Town, right bank corridor conservation.

Very High priority due to extreme sensitivity of the reach.

Hydrologic stressors are extreme, sediment increase is high, increase in stream power and no increase in boundary resistance, natural and human vertical constraints, road is a lateral constraint.

Replace undersized structures; work with community on BMP related to stormwater.

Very High priority due to extreme sensitivity of the segment.

Hydrologic stressors are extreme, sediment increase is high, increase in stream power, no increase in boundary resistance, natural vertical constraints, road is a lateral constraint.

Restore aggraded reach; replace structure; reduce sediment inputs from u/s at farm.

High Priority to re-establish transport capacity of segment.

Hydrologic stressors are extreme, sediment increase is high,increase in stream power and boundary resistance, natural and human vertical constraints, road is a lateral constraint.

Replace undersized structures; work with community on BMP related to stormwater.

Very High priority due to extreme sensitivity of the segment.

Hydrologic stressors are moderate, sediment increase is low, no increase in stream power, boundary resistance is increased due to natural grade control, natural vertical and lateral constraints.

Corridor Conservation. Social benefits high - this reach is natural transport with no encroachments in either corridor. High value for geology. Medium priority.

Hydrologic stressors are moderate, sediment increase is moderate, no reach modification stressors, no vertical constraints, only half of one bank has lateral (road) constraint, important sediment attenuation reach.

Corridor Conservation & possible structure removal and/or replacement.

High priority - rare mainstem reach with out lateral constraints.


36

7.0 References Albers, Jan. Hands on the Land: A History of the Vermont Landscape. MIT Press, Cambridge

MA, 2000. Davis, C.L. Consulting Associates for Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Stream

Geomorphic Assessment SGAT User Guide, Stream Geomorphic Assessment Tools, Version 4: An ArcView Extension. October, 2005.

Houston, Clay. Phase 1 SGA Report Rock River Watershed, Windham County Natural

Resource Conservation District. May, 2006. Johnson, Charles W. The Nature of Vermont. The University Press of New England Hanover,

New Hampshire and London England, 1980. Meeks, Harold A. Vermont’s Land and Resources. The New England Press, Shelburne,

Vermont, 1986. Mundell, Merrill. Landowner interview. August, 2006. The Nature Conservancy, http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/alert/alrteuon.html Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment Phase 1

Handbook – Watershed Assessment Using Maps, Existing Data, and Windshield Surveys. April, 2005.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment Phase 2

Handbook – Rapid Stream Assessment Field Protocols. March, 2006. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Vermont Geomorphic Assessment, Appendix P,

Mapping Channel Impacts Using the Reach Indexing Tool. January, 2005. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, River Corridor Planning Guide to Identify and Develop

River Corridor Protection and Restoration Projects. Partially Drafted River Management Program. February 20, 2007.

Rock River Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment

Appendix A Historic Topographic Maps .......................................................................................... 1 Hydrologic Alterations.................................................................................................. 5 Hydrologic Stressors .................................................................................................... 6 Sediment Load Indicators ............................................................................................ 7 Channel Slope Modifiers .............................................................................................. 8 Channel Depth Modifiers .............................................................................................. 9 Boundary Condition and Riparian Modifiers ............................................................ 10 Constraints to Sediment Transport and Attenuation ............................................... 11 Existing and Reference Stream Types ...................................................................... 12

1 1

Historic Topographic Maps

5 5

Hydrologic Alterations

6 6

Hydrologic Stressors

River Segment HydrologicSediment Load

Increase Stream Power Boundary ResistanceT02.01- Moderate Moderate None NoneT02.02- Moderate Low None Increase - Bed (u/s GC)T02.03- Moderate Low Decrease - Constriction Increase - Bed (GC)T02.04- Moderate High None NoneT02.05A Moderate Low Increase - Slope (straightening) Decrease - BufferT02.05B Moderate High Increase - Slope (multiple)) Increase - Bank (armoring)T02.05C Moderate Moderate Increase - Slope (encroachments) Decrease - BufferT02.05-S1.01- Moderate Low Increase - Slope (multiple) Increase - Bank (ledge)T02.05-S1.02- Moderate High Increase - Slope (straightening) Decrease - BufferT02.05-S1.03- Moderate High Increase - Slope (straightening) NoneT02.05-S1.04- Moderate Moderate Increase - Depth (berming) NoneT02.05-S1.05- Moderate Moderate Increase - Slope (encroachments) Increase - (armoring); Decrease (buffer)T02.06A Moderate High Increase - Depth (berming) None

T02.06B Moderate LowIncrease - Slope (straightening & encroachments) Decrease - Bank (armoring)

T02.07- Moderate Moderate None NoneT02.08- Moderate Moderate Increase - Slope (encroachments) Decrease - Buffer

T02.09- Moderate HighIncrease - Slope (straightening & encroachments) Increase - Bank (armoring)

T02.10- Moderate LowIncrease - Slope (straightening & encroachments) Increase - Bank (armoring)

T02.11- Moderate Low None Increase - Bed (multiple GC)

T02.11-S1.01A Extreme HighIncrease - Slope (straightening & encroachments) Increase - Bank (armoring)

T02.11-S1.01B Extreme HighDecrease - Constriction (ledge & DJ) Increase - Bed (GC)

T02.11-S1.01C Extreme HighIncrease - Slope (straightening & encroachments) None

T02.12- Moderate HighIncrease - Slope & Depth (encroachments & berming) None

T2.03-S2.01- Moderate High Increase - Slope (encroachments) NoneT2.03-S2.02- High High Increase - Slope (encroachments) Decrease - Buffer

Watershed Input Stressors Reach Modification Stressors

7 7

Sediment Load Indicators

8 8

Channel Slope Modifiers

9 9

Channel Depth Modifiers

10 10

Boundary Condition and Riparian Modifiers

11 11

Constraints to Sediment Transport and Attenuation

River Segment Vertical Lateral Natural Converted Natural Increased AssetT02.01- None None X XT02.02- Natural Road X X XT02.03- Natural Road & Dev. X X X XT02.04- None None X X XT02.05A None None X XT02.05B None Road & Dev. X XT02.05C None Road & Dev. X XT02.05-S1.01- None Road X X XT02.05-S1.02- None None X XT02.05-S1.03- None Road X XT02.05-S1.04- None None X X XT02.05-S1.05- None Road XT02.06A None Road & Dev. X XT02.06B None Road XT02.07- None Road (half) X X XT02.08- None Road X XT02.09- None Road X X XT02.10- None Road XT02.11- Natural Natural X XT02.11-S1.01A Natural & Human (cx4) Road XT02.11-S1.01B Natural Road (third) X XT02.11-S1.01C Natural & Human (cx2) Road XT02.12- None Road (half) XT2.03-S2.01- Natural Road & Dev. X XT2.03-S2.02- None Road X X XYellow are priorty reaches as sediment attenuation assets.(c) = culvert for vertical constraint

Constraints Transport AttenuationDeparture Analysis

12 12

Existing and Reference Stream Types

13 13

Impact Summary Table

Reach

Bank Armoring or Revetment

Bridge or Culvert

Debris Jam Development Encroachment % Eroding

Grade Control Gully

Mass Failure Migration

Steep Riffle or Head Cut

Stormwater Input Straightening

Stream Crossing

% Straightened

T02.01 739 187 1378 1397 2% 2 2 6 0%T02.02 919 3515 0% 1 1 0%T02.03 254 2063 2604 1% 3 1 2 581 20%T02.04 176 619 414 11% 2 1 1018 39%T02.05 1040 363 3787 3771 9% 1 2 6873 94%T02.05-S1.01 337 721 265 1091 7% 1 2268 100%T02.05-S1.02 250 1435 3622 20% 3 5 5 7981 1 96%T02.05-S1.03 1203 532 1055 5726 28% 3 1 6 4630 68%T02.05-S1.04 276 114 215 2010 17% 1 1 0%T02.05-S1.05 1978 272 5120 14% 4 7 4 0%T02.06 1287 455 3813 12% 1 5 3 552 1 10%T02.07 284 71 427 2208 13% 5 664 1 17%T02.08 105 1734 9% 1 106 6%T02.09 1291 364 1324 5464 8% 1 1 2221 49%T02.10 1137 96 429 1701 4% 2 1 1 1026 46%T02.11 346 108 144 2% 10 1 1 1 508 13%T02.11-S1.01 1524 668 3 1077 7784 16% 10 1 12 6 1 7 2141 1 19%T02.12 983 226 739 5196 15% 3 7 2 1 1132 1 14%T2.03-S2.01 370 417 2108 4039 9% 2 7 1 1 0%T2.03-S2.02 386 291 1 568 6865 3% 1 1 7 1 8 1 0%


Appendix B – Phase 2 Data

May 17, 2007

0

6,190

August 31, 2006

Landslide Natural Resource

Baker Brook T2.03-S2.02Reach # Segment:

Segment Length (ft):

Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:

Organization: Why Not assessed: Rain:ADS, CH

Completion Date:

page 1 of 2Phase 2 Segment Summary

Yes

Baker Brook, along Baker Brook Rd near Parish Hill Rd

West River - Rock River FIT: Yes

1.2 Alluvial Fan

1.3 Corridor Encroachments

Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)

Step 2. Stream Channel Step 4. Flow & Flow Modifiers

2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus

2.12 Substrate Composition

Left Right

%

4.2 Adjacent Wetlands

4.3 Flow Status

4.4 # of Debris Jams

4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Steep

Sometimes

Always

Sand

Complete

Step 5. Channel Bed and Planform Changes

5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid

5.4 Stream Ford or Animal

5.3 Steep Riffles and Head Cuts

Steep Riffles Head Cuts Trib Rejuv.

Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)

Left RightBank Erosion

Lower

Upper

Coniferous

None

Material Type

Material Type Boulder/Cobbl

Sand

Sub-dominant Deciduous

Left RightBank Texture

Right

Bank Canopy RightLeft

Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft

3.3 Riparian Corridor

Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

One

2.7 Entrenchment Ratio

# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type

2.15 Reference Stream Type Gullies(if different from Phase 1)

Note:

Step 1.6 - Grade Controls and

Step 4.8 - Channel Constrictions

are on The second page of this

report - Steps 6 through 7.

Revetmt. Type

None

No

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No

2.6 Width/Depth Ratio

No

76-100 76-100

Closed

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl

Step 3. Riparian Features1.1 Segmentation

Typical Bank Slope Shallow

Revetmt. Length (ft)

Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

Coniferous

LeftNear Bank Veg. Type

Consistency

Consistency Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

1 0

6 0 0

12 0 0

16 1

Narrowly

2.50

1.70

2.50

25.29

1.23

1.00

Low

11

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

12.00

9

5-25 >100

None None

4.6 # of Stormwater Inputs

Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Riffle-Pool

Gravel

Bar

Bed

751

0

0

0

568

0

6,115

0

0

0

53

Measured

43

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 11

%Cobble 25

%Coarse Gravel 23

%Fine Gravel 17

%Sand 24

228 164

386 0

None

Moderate

None

1

Abundant

None

8

0

0

No

One 15.00

Neck Cutoff Braiding

Human-caused changed valley width? yes

This reach is a C riffle pool by reference but

is currently an F riffle pool due to historic

degradation (entrenchement) and widening.

It is in stage IV of the F-stage channel

evolution model is extremely sensitive (due to

the stream type departure) and in fair

geomorphic condition. Ford is new for acces

to camp. It was 1 week old (according to a

neighbor) when we saw it.

2.4 Floodprone Width (ft)

2.11 Riffle/Step Spacing (ft)

0

inches

Avulsion

Affected Length (ft)

4.9 # of Beaver Dams

Mid-Channel Canopy

53

5.5 Dredging

1

Deciduous

106

2.13 Average Largest Particle on

inches

Step 1. Valley and Floodplain2.1 Bankfull Width

5.5 Straightening

None

Yes

No

0

14.0

13.0

Straightening Length:

2.10 Riffles Type

Mixed TreesMixed Trees

May 17, 2007

0

5,151

August 24, 2006


Baker Brook T2.03-S2.01Reach # Segment:


Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Mouth of Baker Brook, Williamsville Village


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Cobble

Not Applicable


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Sand

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Very Steep

Always

Always

Cobble

No


No

76-100 76-100

Closed

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl


Typical Bank Slope Steep


Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

1 0

7 0 0

6 1 1

11 3

Semi-confined

1.30

0.85

1.30

45.18

1.07

1.00

Low

4

Non-cohesive

0.00

Multiple

0.00

0.00

8

26-50 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Plane Bed

Gravel

Bar

Bed

809

0

0

0

2,108

0

3,230

0

0

0

107

Measured

38

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 16

%Cobble 34

%Coarse Gravel 18

%Fine Gravel 17

%Sand 15

623 268

324 47

Some

Moderate

None

0

Abundant

None

1

0

0

No

None 0.00


Human-caused changed valley width? Yes

This reach is in the process of re-building

active floodplain. There are numerous old

terraces on the RB. Abundant placed rock in

the stream, possibly post 1973 flood.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

41

5.5 Dredging

0

Coniferous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

No

0

19.6

11.0


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

7,821

August 22, 2006


Rock River Main Stem T02.12Reach # Segment:


Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Rock River main stem, through Goose City


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Sometimes

Always

Sand

Not Applicable


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Coniferous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Sand

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

Multiple


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

None

Flat

Sometimes

Always

Sand

No


Yes

76-100 76-100

Closed

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

2 0

7 0 0

2 0 2

10 14

Narrow

1.90

1.31

7.90

23.66

1.35

4.16

Low

19

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

55.00

2

26-50 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Plane Bed

Cobble

Bar

Bed

1,190

3,832

0

0

739

174

0

0

0

0

150

Measured

31

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 15

%Cobble 44

%Coarse Gravel 17

%Fine Gravel 16

%Sand 8

1,151 1,264

645 338

None

Moderate

None

0

Some

None

1

0

0

No

None 0.00


Human-caused changed valley width? no

This reach is a B plane bed by reference but

is currently an F. It is entrenched and incised,

having undergone historic degradation. It is

presently in planform adjustment. The river

was historically closer to the LVW according

to a30+ yr. resident, whose Father used to tell

her about it. It may have been moved for the

road or ag. The channel bermed in many

places. Old channel bed obvious in many

places.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

42

5.5 Dredging

0

Coniferous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

Yes

Yes

1,132

15.0

11.5


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

C

4,038

August 23, 2006


Taft Brook T02.11-S1.01Reach # Segment:


Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

U/S from horse farm to end of reach.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type

Material Type Sand

Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

Multiple


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

Substrate Size

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

76-100 76-100

Closed

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Boulder/Cobbl

Sand


Typical Bank Slope Undercut


Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

1 0

2 0 0

0 0 1

13 10

Narrow

1.60

0.91

4.10

19.33

1.19

2.56

Low

22

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

9.50

17

26-50 51-100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Riffle-Pool

Gravel

Bar

Bed

61

2,356

0

0

239

0

0

0

0

0

59

Measured

18

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 12

%Cobble 30

%Coarse Gravel 15

%Fine Gravel 26

%Sand 17

389 397

347 32

Some

Moderate

None

1

Abundant

None

1

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reach is highly affected by undersized

bridges and culverts and narrowing and

straightening from the road as well as

numerous grade controls. The constrictions

cause u/s aggradation. There are also

numerous mf that seem to be caused by

seeps high in the banks. The first bridge

entered for this segment (11') has no

abutments, thus no full bridge and culvert

survey was done for it.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

21

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

22


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

1,092

12.5

11.0


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

B

2,749

August 23, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Mid-segment grade control to u/s of farm opening on road.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Sedimented


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Coniferous

None

Material Type

Material Type Gravel

Sand

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

Multiple


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

Substrate Size

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


Yes

76-100 76-100

Closed

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Gravel




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

2 0 0

0 0 0

11 15

Broad

2.30

2.00

2.30

12.50

4.80

1.00

Low

10

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

23.33

5

>100 51-100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

C

b

Plane Bed

Gravel

Bar

Bed

66

1,358

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

122

Measured

25

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 2

%Cobble 19

%Coarse Gravel 20

%Fine Gravel 33

%Sand 26

193 223

21 0

Some

Moderate

None

2

Some

None

2

0

0

No

None 0.00



This segment is currently a C stream type.

The slope is 2.9% which makes the subclass

slope b still. There is significant aggradation

exacerbated by a d/s debris jam and u/s

erosion at the horse farm. There was

evidence of gravel removal at one site in this

segment near the horse farm.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

120

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

Yes

No

0

4.0

7.0


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

A

4,571

August 23, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

First reach of Taft west of East Dover.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type

Material Type Sand

Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

One


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

Substrate Size

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

76-100 76-100

Closed

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Boulder/Cobbl

Sand




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

2 0 0

0 0 0

55 22

Narrow

1.60

0.91

4.10

19.33

1.19

2.56

Low

22

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

0.00

12

26-50 51-100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Riffle-Pool

Gravel

Bar

Bed

57

3,886

0

0

838

0

0

0

0

0

59

Measured

18

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 12

%Cobble 30

%Coarse Gravel 15

%Fine Gravel 26

%Sand 17

1,239 1,256

980 145

Some

Moderate

None

0

Abundant

None

4

0

0

No

One 0.00



This reach is highly affected by undersized

bridges and culverts and narrowing and

straightening from the road as well as

numerous grade controls. The constrictions

cause u/s aggradation. There are also

numerous mf that seem to be caused by

seeps high in the banks.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

21

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

22


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

1,048

12.5

11.0


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

3,873

August 30, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Rock River main stem, between Brookside and East Dover


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Sometimes

Always

Sand

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Coniferous

None

Material Type


Sand

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

One


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Steep

Sometimes

Always

Not Evalua

Yes


No

76-100 76-100

Closed

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

1 0 0

2 0 0

21 2

Narrow

2.30

1.30

2.30

25.38

1.12

1.00

Low

7

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

40.00

6

51-100 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

B

None

Step-Pool

Gravel

Bar

Bed

0

0

0

0

144

0

0

0

0

0

129

Measured

33

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 18

%Cobble 26

%Coarse Gravel 19

%Fine Gravel 14

%Sand 23

190 0

346 0

None

Moderate

None

0

Some

None

0

0

0

No

One 40.00



This reach has a gorge on the d/s end and in

the u/s section where a mill used to be.

There is unique conglomerate rock in the d/s

gorge. The majority of this reach is well away

from the road which makes it unique for the

Rock River. However, it appears, from

historic topographic maps, that the town road

used to be adjacent to the left bank. This

feature was identified as an old logging road

in the field.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

37

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

62


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

508

18.3

14.3


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

2,245

August 30, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Rock River main stem through Brookside.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

Multiple


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

51-75 76-100

Open

Forest

Residential Residential

Forest

NoneNone

Boulder/Cobbl

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

1 0 0

0 0 0

5 4

Narrowly

2.80

1.83

2.80

28.42

1.19

1.00

Low

1

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

10.00

0

26-50 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Step-Pool

Gravel

Bar

Bed

0

1,701

0

0

121

0

0

0

0

309

207

Estimated

52

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 19

%Cobble 19

%Coarse Gravel 21

%Fine Gravel 12

%Sand 29

0 180

575 562

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

1

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reach starts in Brookside and ends just

upstream of the Adam’s Brook confluence. It

is located in a narrowly confined valley and

the Dover Road runs along its entire length.

The left and right banks are 25% rip-rapped

and there are two mass failures on the right

bank. One thousand feet of the reach are

straightened and there are multiple point and

side bars present in the channel.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

62

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

150


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

1,026

18.3

14.6


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

4,506

August 18, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


No

Rock River main stem, below Brookside


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Eroded


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

Multiple


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

26-50 51-75

Open

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Boulder/Cobbl

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

1 0 0

3 0 0

6 5

Semi-confined

4.30

2.65

4.30

24.15

1.30

1.00

Low

3

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

115.00

5

26-50 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

B

None

Plane Bed

Cobble

Bar

Bed

1,096

3,632

0

0

1,262

0

736

0

0

62

125

Measured

64

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 33

%Cobble 25

%Coarse Gravel 9

%Fine Gravel 10

%Sand 23

590 120

1,182 108

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reach is dominated by the Dover Road.

It is difficult to see on the historic topographic

maps, but it was likely moved in the past for

road construction. The valley width has been

narrowed by the road. There are two mass

failures, one very large one, that dates to the

1937 flood.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

83

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

2,221

20.0

15.1


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

1,781

August 17, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


No

Rock River main stem, along Dover Rd, ending just u/s from trib T2.08-S1.01 that comes in


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Eroded


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

None

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Steep

Never

Always

Cobble

No


No

26-50 51-75

Open

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

1 0 0

2 0 0

8 0

Narrowly

3.50

2.51

8.10

20.32

1.30

2.31

Low

1

Non-cohesive

0.00

None

0.00

0.00

4

5-25 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

B

None

Plane Bed

Cobble

Bar

Bed

0

1,045

0

0

105

0

689

0

0

0

246

Estimated

51

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 25

%Cobble 29

%Coarse Gravel 21

%Fine Gravel 8

%Sand 17

304 0

0 0

Some

Moderate

None

0

Some

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



The town road used to cross the downstream

end of this reach to continue along the left

bank of the river. At some point between

1935 and 1954 a new road was put in on the

south side of the river and is the main road

today. The river appears to be closer to its

original planform after this adjustment.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

67

5.5 Dredging

0

Shrubs/Saplin

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

106

21.0

15.0


2.10 Riffles Type

DeciduousDeciduous

May 17, 2007

0

3,802

August 18, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


No

Rock River main stem, along Dover Rd, beginning at Stratton Hill Rd. and continuing .7


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Eroded


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Sand

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

26-50 26-50

Open

Forest

None None

Residential

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

5 0 0

0 0 0

9 3

Broad

3.60

2.40

5.40

24.29

1.35

1.50

Low

7

Non-cohesive

0.00

None

0.00

0.00

3

51-100 26-50

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Plane Bed

Gravel

Bar

Bed

604

1,604

0

0

427

0

0

0

0

0

363

Measured

58

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 18

%Cobble 25

%Coarse Gravel 20

%Fine Gravel 9

%Sand 28

545 416

0 284

None

Moderate

None

0

Some

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



Historically, this reach functioned as a

sediment storage and flood attenuation asset,

as do all C type streams, but it has degraded

from a C to an F type stream. The multiple

flood chutes are indicative of planform

adjustment. Some time between 1935 and

1954 the road and river were moved south to

their present location. Floodplain access

could be restored along portions of this reach,

making it a good candidate for active

geomorphic restoration.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

79

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

Yes

Yes

664

19.5

9.3


2.10 Riffles Type

DeciduousDeciduous

May 17, 2007

B

1,428

August 17, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


No

Southwest of Deer Hill, ends at Stratton Hill Road.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Not Applicable


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Shrubs/Saplin

Multiple

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl



Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

Channel Dimensions

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

51-75 26-50

Open

Forest

None None

Residential

NoneNone

Mix

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

3 0 0

0 0 0

1 0

Broad

3.60

2.40

6.70

27.08

1.74

1.86

Low

0

Non-cohesive

0.00

None

0.00

0.00

0

>100 5-25

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

B

c

Plane Bed

Gravel

Bar

Bed

334

743

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

329

Measured

65

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 8

%Cobble 17

%Coarse Gravel 20

%Fine Gravel 18

%Sand 37

0 0

0 587

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reachis currently aggrading after

historically incising and widening.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

113

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

552

12.0

8.4


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

A

3,931

August 12, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


No

West of South Newfane.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Not Applicable


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Gravel

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

One


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

Channel Dimensions

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

51-75 51-75

Open

Forest

None None

Residential

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

3 0

2 0 0

3 0 1

10 2

Narrow

4.20

2.90

9.80

29.10

1.19

2.33

Low

5

Non-cohesive

0.00

None

0.00

125.00

6

>100 26-50

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Plane Bed

Cobble

Bar

Bed

1,493

1,244

0

0

455

0

0

0

0

0

268

Estimated

84

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 31

%Cobble 34

%Coarse Gravel 16

%Fine Gravel 11

%Sand 9

1,047 212

0 700

None

Moderate

None

0

Abundant

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reach was segmented due to channel

dimension, substrate size and depositional

features. It is located in a narrowly confined

valley with no human caused changes to the

valley width. This reach is currently in

planform adjustment and is aggrading.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

100

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

Yes

No

0

14.0

12.0


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

5,876

September 7, 2006


Marlboro Branch T02.05-S1.05Reach # Segment:


Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

From just past the confluence with Adam's Brook 1.1 miles to just past the conluence with


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Very Steep

Sometimes

Sometimes

Cobble

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Coniferous

Rip-Rap

Material Type

Material Type Bedrock

Bedrock



Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

76-100 76-100

Open

Forest

Residential None

Forest

NoneNone

Boulder/Cobbl

Boulder/Cobbl


Typical Bank Slope Moderate


Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

Coniferous


Consistency

Consistency Cohesive

Cohesive

Non-cohesive

7 0

4 0 0

1 0 1

14 5

Semi-confined

2.80

1.40

2.80

25.36

1.42

1.00

Low

1

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

0.00

3

5-25 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

B

None

Step-Pool

Cobble

Bar

Bed

975

4,145

0

0

272

0

0

0

0

0

85

Measured

36

%Bedrock 26

%Boulder 18

%Cobble 12

%Coarse Gravel 10

%Fine Gravel 12

%Sand 22

1,153 440

1,796 182

Some

Moderate

None

0

Abundant

None

4

0

0

No

None 0.00


Human-caused changed valley width? No

RB dominated by bedrock; LB contained by

road.



1

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

50

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

32


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

No

0

24.0

16.0


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

2,372

September 7, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Continues along Augerhole Road after Lahar Rd. heads south for .45 miles to just after


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

None

Material Type


Sand

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

76-100 76-100

Open

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

1 0

1 0 0

1 0 0

1 2

Very Broad

3.90

2.33

6.50

23.86

3.24

1.67

Low

0

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

0.00

1

26-50 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

C

None

Riffle-Pool

Gravel

Bar

Bed

1,622

388

0

0

215

0

0

0

0

0

475

Estimated

56

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 34

%Cobble 15

%Coarse Gravel 11

%Fine Gravel 17

%Sand 23

307 480

276 0

Some

Moderate

None

0

Abundant

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



The reach is C riffle pool both by reference

and currently. It is in stage IV of the F-stage

channel evolution process with minor

planform being the dominant adjustment

process.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

180

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

52


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

No

0

19.0

13.0


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

6,788

September 6, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

From the confluence with the Gulf Brook, the reach continues south 1.3 miles to the


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Coniferous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Sand



Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

One


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

76-100 76-100

Open

Hay

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

Coniferous


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

6 0

1 0 0

5 0 2

12 12

Semi-confined

2.40

1.64

6.10

32.07

1.45

2.54

Low

5

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

12.00

10

26-50 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Riffle-Pool

Cobble

Bar

Bed

818

4,908

0

0

1,055

0

0

0

0

0

147

Measured

53

%Bedrock 5

%Boulder 25

%Cobble 34

%Coarse Gravel 10

%Fine Gravel 13

%Sand 13

1,920 1,888

853 350

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



The reach is a C riffle pool by reference but is

currently a F riffle pool due to moderate

entrenchment. It is in stage IV of the F-stage

channel evolution model with aggradation

and planform adjustment being the dominant

current adjustment processes. There is

significant evidence from historic topographic

maps that the river was moved and

straightened between 1935 and 1954.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

76

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

53


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

4,630

19.0

9.0


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

8,326

September 1, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

1.6 miles long, beginning where the Marlboro Branch moves west away from the road and


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Sand

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

Multiple


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

76-100 76-100

Open

Forest

None None

Hay

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

5 0

4 0 0

5 0 1

15 10

Broad

2.90

2.30

4.80

30.43

2.03

1.66

Low

14

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

23.33

2

>100 5-25

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Riffle-Pool

Gravel

Bar

Bed

1,849

1,773

0

0

1,034

0

0

0

0

402

690

Estimated

70

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 9

%Cobble 35

%Coarse Gravel 23

%Fine Gravel 16

%Sand 17

317 2,971

149 101

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



A review of the historic topographic maps

reveals that some time between 1935 and

1954 the river was moved toward the left

valley wall in this reach. An old channel was

noted near the left valley wall in some places

during the assessment, in one case it is a

current flood chute. Many point bars,

abandoned channels and flood chutes. This

reach is re-establishing meanders after

having been straightened.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

142

5.5 Dredging

1

Deciduous

50


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

Yes

Yes

7,981

17.0

13.0


2.10 Riffles Type

DeciduousMixed Trees

May 17, 2007

0

2,268

August 31, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Starts in South Newfane at the confluence with the Rock and continues south .44 miles


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

Sedimented


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Invasives

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Sand



Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

None

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

51-75 76-100

Open

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

Deciduous


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

1 0 0

1 0 0

3 5

Narrow

3.40

2.27

5.90

28.63

2.68

1.74

Low

1

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

0.00

0

51-100 26-50

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

C

None

Plane Bed

Cobble

Bar

Bed

0

1,091

0

0

265

0

0

0

0

0

174

Estimated

65

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 17

%Cobble 38

%Coarse Gravel 19

%Fine Gravel 4

%Sand 22

312 0

138 199

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



A review of the historic topographic maps

reveals that some time between 1935 and

1954 the river was moved toward the right

valley wall in this reach. An old channel was

noted near the left valley wall during the

assessment. The reach is C riffle pool by

reference and is currently a C plane bed due

to aggradation. It is in stage IV of the F-stage

channel evolution process with the dominant

adjustment process being aggradation due to

the loss of step-pool bed features.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

174

5.5 Dredging

0

Invasives

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

2,268

16.0

16.6


2.10 Riffles Type

DeciduousDeciduous

May 17, 2007

C

2,651

August 11, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:

Organization: Why Not assessed: Rain:ADS, JC

Completion Date:


Yes

South Newfane Village to covered bridge in Williamsville.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Sometimes

Sometimes

Cobble

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Shrubs/Saplin

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl



Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

Planform and Scope

None

Flat

Always

Always

Cobble

No


No

76-100 1-25

Open

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

1 0

1 0 0

1 0 0

5 0

Narrow

5.20

3.70

8.10

19.73

2.31

1.56

Low

2

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

0.00

1

>100 5-25

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

C

None

Riffle-Pool

Cobble

Bar

Bed

0

1,787

0

0

820

0

0

0

0

1,272

320

Estimated

73

%Bedrock 4

%Boulder 22

%Cobble 29

%Coarse Gravel 19

%Fine Gravel 1

%Sand 25

143 192

164 204

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



The right bank is dominated by the road.

There is one bridge that is a floodplain

constriction with deposition below and scour

above it.

The segment is a C riffle pool stream type

currently and by reference. It is in good

geomorphic condition and is in stage II of the

F-stage channel evolution model with minor

widening as the dominant adjustment

process. The left bank provides critical

floodplain along this straight segment.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

169

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

168


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

2,480

12.0

8.0


2.10 Riffles Type

HerbaceousDeciduous

May 17, 2007

B

1,101

August 16, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:

Organization: Why Not assessed: Rain:ADS, SH

Completion Date:


Yes

In middle of reach at riprapped and over widened area adjacent to road.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sand

Sedimented


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

Planform and Scope

No

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

51-75 51-75

Open

Forest

None None

Residential

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

Deciduous


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

1 0

0 0 0

0 0 1

0 0

Semi-confined

5.00

3.30

11.00

38.79

1.27

2.20

Low

0

Non-cohesive

0.00

None

0.00

0.00

1

>100 26-50

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Plane Bed

Cobble

Bar

Bed

0

1,121

0

0

861

0

0

0

0

0

428

Estimated

128

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 19

%Cobble 48

%Coarse Gravel 17

%Fine Gravel 5

%Sand 11

638 0

0 368

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reach is widening, eroding and

aggrading. It used to be split by the road but

was moved to the north channel between

1935 and 1954. It is extensively rip-rapped

along the right bank for the road and is the

first wide, bend in the river for 2,000 feet.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

163

5.5 Dredging

0

Coniferous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

977

24.0

15.0


2.10 Riffles Type

DeciduousMixed Trees

May 17, 2007

A

3,533

August 11, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

South Newfane village to covered bridge west of Williamsville.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Sometimes

Sometimes

Cobble

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Shrubs/Saplin

Rip-Rap

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl



Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

Planform and Scope

None

Flat

Always

Always

Cobble

No


No

76-100 1-25

Open

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

0 0 0

1 0 0

5 0

Broad

5.20

3.66

8.10

19.95

2.31

1.56

Low

2

Non-cohesive

0.00

None

0.00

0.00

1

>100 5-25

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

C

None

Riffle-Pool

Cobble

Bar

Bed

0

863

0

0

835

0

0

0

0

0

600

Estimated

73

%Bedrock 4

%Boulder 22

%Cobble 29

%Coarse Gravel 19

%Fine Gravel 1

%Sand 25

38 232

0 304

None

Moderate

None

0

None

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reach was straightened between 1935

and 1954. It has few corridor encroachments

and is in reference stream type with minor

widening.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

169

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

168


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

3,416

12.0

8.0


2.10 Riffles Type

HerbaceousDeciduous

May 17, 2007

0

2,582

August 11, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

From covered bridge west of Williamsville to village.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Very Steep

Always

Always

Cobble

Eroded


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Coniferous

None

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

One


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Flat

Always

Always

Sand

No


No

26-50 26-50

Open

Hay

Residential None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

0 0 0

1 0 0

5 0

Broad

2.70

1.90

4.90

43.16

1.62

1.81

Low

7

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

40.00

0

51-100 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Plane Bed

Gravel

Bar

Bed

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

414

624

Estimated

82

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 11

%Cobble 37

%Coarse Gravel 16

%Fine Gravel 8

%Sand 28

586 0

176 0

None

Moderate

None

0

Some

None

0

0

0

Yes

Multiple 100.00



There was a dredging violation on this reach

in the 1990's. It is located just upstream of an

old dam that was removed in the 1980's.

There is an old channel on the left terrace. It

is currently widening and undergoing

planform adjustment.



0

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

133

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

0



5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

1,018

0.0

0.0

Not Evaluated


2.10 Riffles Type

Mixed TreesDeciduous

May 17, 2007

0

2,883

August 16, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:

Organization: Why Not assessed: Rain:ADS, JC, SH

Completion Date:


Yes

In Village of Williamsville.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Steep

Always

Always

Boulder

Eroded


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Deciduous

None

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

One


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

No

Steep

Sometimes

Sometimes

Cobble

No


No

51-75 51-75

Open

Residential

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Boulder/Cobbl

Gravel




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

2 0 0

0 0 0

9 0

Narrowly

5.60

3.10

5.60

31.06

1.07

1.00

Low

2

Non-cohesive

0.00

None

0.00

50.00

1

51-100 51-100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Riffle-Pool

Cobble

Bar

Bed

0

2,120

0

0

961

0

485

0

0

1,102

103

Measured

96

%Bedrock 9

%Boulder 32

%Cobble 36

%Coarse Gravel 13

%Fine Gravel 1

%Sand 9

63 0

0 0

None

Moderate

None

0

Abundant

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reach was historically dammed until the

1980's when the dam was allowed to

"dismantle naturally". It is still adjusting to the

dam removal. There is a very wide area

downstream of the dam site with two flood

chutes that are accessed regularly. The main

flow has been in the left most channel, grade

controlled area, for at least 30 years (local

interview).



0

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

103

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

0



5.5 Straightening

None

No

Yes

581

0.0

0.0

Not Evaluated


2.10 Riffles Type


May 17, 2007

0

3,693

August 10, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Just east of Williamsville and Williamsville bridge.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Flat

Sometimes

Sometimes

Cobble

Not Applicable


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Coniferous

None

Material Type


Sand

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

None

Flat

Always

Always

Cobble

No


No

51-75 51-75

Open

Hay

Forest None

Forest

NoneNone

Sand

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

0 0

1 0 0

0 0 1

4 0

Semi-confined

3.00

2.20

9.00

43.64

1.11

3.00

Low

2

Non-cohesive

0.00

None

0.00

0.00

1

26-50 5-25

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

F

None

Plane Bed

Cobble

Bar

Bed

0

3,515

0

0

281

0

0

0

0

638

242

Measured

96

%Bedrock 0

%Boulder 26

%Cobble 44

%Coarse Gravel 8

%Fine Gravel 12

%Sand 10

0 0

0 0

None

Moderate

None

0

Some

None

0

0

0

No

None 0.00



This reach is located downstream of the

village of Williamsville in a semi-confined

valley that is naturally straight. There is a

gravel town road along the entire right bank

and the left corridor is almost entirely mowed

meadow though the stream bank is vegetated

along both banks. It is aggrading with historic

degradation and widening.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

107

5.5 Dredging

0

Deciduous

0


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

No

0

N/A

23.0


2.10 Riffles Type

Mixed TreesDeciduous

May 17, 2007

0

7,999

August 10, 2006




Observers:

Segment Location:

Project:

Stream:


Completion Date:


Yes

Williamsville Station 1.5 miles upstream.


1.2 Alluvial Fan


Berms

Roads

Railroads

Improved Paths

Development

Length (ft)

1.4 Adjacent Side

Hillside Slope

Continuous w/

W/in 1 Bankfill

Texture

1.5 Valley Features

Valley Width (ft)


2.3 Mean Depth (ft)

2.8 Incision Ratio

2.9 Sinuosity

Silt/Clay Present?

Detritus


Left Right

%


4.3 Flow Status


4.5 Impoundments

4.7 Upstream Flow

4.1 Springs / Seeps

Impoundmt. Location

2.5 Aband. Floodpln

Very Steep

Sometimes

Sometimes

Boulder

Complete


5.1 Bar Types

SidePoint

IslandDeltaDiagonal

5.2 Other Features

Mid




Flood

One Both

3.1 Stream Banks

2.2 Max Depth (ft)


Lower

Upper

Coniferous

Hard Bank

Material Type


Boulder/Cobbl

Sub-dominant None


Right


Canopy %

Buffer Width

3.2 Riparian Buffer

RightLeft

RightLeft

Corridor Land

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Buffer Veg. Type

RightLeft


Mass Failures

Sub-dominant

Dominant

Confinement Type

Rock Gorge?

Width Determination

Notes:

Amount Mean Height

None


# Large Woody

2.14 Stream Type


Note:





Revetmt. Type

None

None

Extremely

Always

Always

Bedrock

No


No

76-100 76-100

Open

Forest

None None

Forest

NoneNone

Boulder/Cobbl

Boulder/Cobbl




Erosion Height (ft)

Erosion Length (ft)

Dominant

None


Consistency


Non-cohesive

Non-cohesive

6 0

2 0 0

0 0 3

10 0

Semi-confined

3.40

1.67

8.40

68.86

1.40

2.47

Low

8

Non-cohesive

0.00

Rip-Rap

0.00

0.00

0

>100 >100

None None


Subclass Slope:

Bed Material:

Stream Type:

Bed Form:

B

c

Riffle-Pool

Cobble

Bar

Bed

240

834

0

0

0

0

323

0

0

1,378

191

Measured

115

%Bedrock 1

%Boulder 31

%Cobble 38

%Coarse Gravel 17

%Fine Gravel 6

%Sand 7

0 241

483 256

None

Moderate

None

0

Abundant

None

0

0

0

No

Multiple 32.50



This reach is dominated by ledge outcrops

that have created a series of deep pools

(heavily used for swimming) and riffles. It

historically incised, perhaps when the dam at

T08.03 was present, and widened. It is

currently aggrading. We saw a mink on

08/10/2006.



0

inches

Avulsion



Mid-Channel Canopy

161

5.5 Dredging

0

Coniferous

274


inches


5.5 Straightening

None

No

No

0

24.0

24.0


2.10 Riffles Type

ConiferousConiferous

Score

6.1 Epifaunal Substrate - Available Cover 13

6.2 Embeddedness 11

6.3 Velocity/Depth Patterns 19

6.4 Sediment Deposition 12

6.5 Channel Flow Status 14

6.6 Channel Alteration 11

6.7 Frequency of Riffles/Steps 20

6.8 Bank Stability Left: 8 Right: 9

6.9 Bank Vegetation Protection Left: 7 Right: 10

6.10 Riparian Vegetation Zone Width Left: 2 Right: 9

Total Score 145

0.725Habitat Rating

Floodprone

Constriction?Channel

Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem37.0Bridge

Deposition AboveNo YesYes Yes

Yes

August 31, 2006Completion Date:

Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Baker Brook, along Baker Brook Rd near Parish Hill Rd

ADS, CH

T2.03-S2.02 0Segment:

page 2 of 2Phase 2 Reach SummaryWest River - Rock RiverProject:

Baker BrookStream:

Landslide Natural ResourceOrganization:

6,190Segment Length (ft):

Step 7. Rapid Geomorphic Assessment Data

ConfinedConfinement Type

Stream Sensitivity

Geomorphic Condition

Channel Evolution Stage

Channel Evolution Model

Narrative:Habitat Stream Condition Good

Aggradation with historic degradation.

Stream Gradient Type

Step 6. Rapid Habitat Assessment Data

High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Extreme

4.8 Channel Constrictions

1.6 Grade Controls None

Type Location TotalTotal Height

Above WaterPhoto Taken

GPSTakenScore STD Historic

7.1 Channel Degradation 5 C to F Yes

7.2 Channel Aggradation 10 None No

7.3 Widening Channel 13 Yes

7.4 Change in Planform 13 No

Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

41

0.5125

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 8









Total Score 131

0.655Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem0.00Bedrock

NoneNo NoYes Yes

Problem72.3Bridge

Deposition AboveNo NoYes Yes

Problem48.8Bridge

Deposition Above,Deposition BelowNo NoYes Yes

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Mouth of Baker Brook, Williamsville Village

ADS, CH



Baker BrookStream:




Plane BedConfinement Type

Stream Sensitivity





Aggradation with historic degradation.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Extreme


1.6 Grade Controls



GPSTaken

Ledge 3.00 1.00Mid-Segment


Score STD Historic

7.1 Channel Degradation 5 B to F Yes




Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

44

0.55

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 6









Total Score 99

0.495Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem32.6Bridge

NoneNo YesYes Yes

Problem21.3Bridge

Deposition Above,Deposition BelowYes YesYes Yes

Problem33.6Bridge

Deposition Above,Deposition BelowNo YesYes Yes

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Rock River main stem, through Goose City

ADS, CH

T02.12 0Segment:


Rock River Main StemStream:





Stream Sensitivity




Narrative:Habitat Stream Condition Fair

Planform with minor aggradation & historic degradation.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Extreme








7.3 Widening Channel 14 No


Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

38

0.475

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 12









Total Score 125

0.625Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem11.0Bridge

NoneYes YesYes Yes

Problem4.60Instream

Deposition Above,Deposition Below,ScourYes YesYes Yes

Problem2.90Instream


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: U/S from horse farm to end of reach.

ADS, CH

T02.11-S1.01 CSegment:


Taft BrookStream:





Stream Sensitivity





Planform with historic degradation is the dominant adjustment process.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Extreme


1.6 Grade Controls



GPSTaken

Ledge 7.00 6.00Upstream

Score STD Historic





Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

41

0.5125

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 7









Total Score 101

0.505Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem24.2Bridge


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Mid-segment grade control to u/s of farm opening on road.

ADS, CH

T02.11-S1.01 BSegment:


Taft BrookStream:





Stream Sensitivity





Stream type departure B to Cb. Aggradation is the dominant adjustment process and is compounded by a debris jam at the down stream end of the reach and major

erosion at the farm at the upstream end of the reach.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Good

Very High


1.6 Grade Controls



GPSTaken







Score STD Historic

7.1 Channel Degradation 15 None No

7.2 Channel Aggradation 10 Other No



Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

52

0.65

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 12









Total Score 125

0.625Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem7.00Bridge

Deposition Above,Deposition Below,ScourYes YesYes Yes

Problem8.20Instream


Problem7.00Instream


Problem8.10Instream


Problem21.4Bridge

Deposition Above,Deposition Below,ScourNo NoYes Yes

Problem6.50Instream

Deposition Above,Scour AboveYes YesYes Yes

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: First reach of Taft west of East Dover.

ADS, CH

T02.11-S1.01 ASegment:


Taft BrookStream:





Stream Sensitivity








High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Extreme


1.6 Grade Controls



GPSTaken

Ledge 7.00 5.00Downstream Yes Yes



Score STD Historic





Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

41

0.5125

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 9









Total Score 155

0.775Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem23.4Instream

NoneYes YesYes Yes

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Rock River main stem, between Brookside and East Dover

ADS, CH

T02.11 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity





Aggradation with historic degradation is the dominant adjustment process.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

High


1.6 Grade Controls



GPSTaken

Dam 10.00 4.00Downstream

Ledge 6.00 3.00Downstream









Score STD Historic





Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

49

0.6125

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 14









Total Score 144

0.72Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem52.0Bridge


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Rock River main stem through Brookside.

ADS, CH

T02.10 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity








High

May 17, 2007

III

F

Fair

Extreme










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

42

0.525

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 13









Total Score 124

0.62Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem92.0Bridge


Problem220.Bridge


No


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Rock River main stem, below Brookside

ADS, CH

T02.09 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity





Aggradation with historic widening.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

High






7.1 Channel Degradation 5 None Yes




Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

38

0.475

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 9









Total Score 99

0.495Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

No


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Rock River main stem, along Dover Rd, ending just u/s from trib T2.08-S1.01 that

ADS, CH

T02.08 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity





Aggradation is the dominant adjustment process.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

High

4.8 Channel Constrictions None









Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

36

0.45

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 11









Total Score 122

0.61Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem38.0Bridge

Deposition Below,Scour Above,ScourYes YesYes Yes

No


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Rock River main stem, along Dover Rd, beginning at Stratton Hill Rd. and continuing .7

ADS, CH

T02.07 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity





Planform is the dominant adjustment process.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Very High










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

48

0.6

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 12









Total Score 107

0.535Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

No


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Southwest of Deer Hill, ends at Stratton Hill Road.

ADS, CH

T02.06 BSegment:







Stream Sensitivity





Minor aggradation.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Good

Moderate










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

60

0.75

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 13









Total Score 117

0.585Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

No


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: West of South Newfane.

ADS, CH

T02.06 ASegment:







Stream Sensitivity





Planform.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Extreme










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

31

0.3875

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 15









Total Score 143

0.715Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem0.00Bedrock Yes YesNo No



Yes

September 7,Completion Date:

Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: From just past the confluence with Adam's Brook 1.1 miles to just past the conluence

ADS, CH



Marlboro BranchStream:





Stream Sensitivity





Planform with historic degradation and widening.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Good

Moderate










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

54

0.675

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 12









Total Score 151

0.755Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem50.3Bridge

Deposition BelowNo YesYes Yes

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Continues along Augerhole Road after Lahar Rd. heads south for .45 miles to just after

ADS, CH







UnconfinedConfinement Type

Stream Sensitivity







High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Good

High










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

52

0.65

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 13









Total Score 153

0.765Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem57.7Bridge

Deposition AboveNo YesYes Yes

Problem48.5Bridge

NoneNo YesYes Yes

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: From the confluence with the Gulf Brook, the reach continues south 1.3 miles to the

ADS, CH








Stream Sensitivity





Planform and widening are the major adjustments.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

High










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

36

0.45

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 10









Total Score 138

0.69Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem56.0Bridge


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: 1.6 miles long, beginning where the Marlboro Branch moves west away from the road

ADS, CH







UnconfinedConfinement Type

Stream Sensitivity





Entrenched, widening and migrating laterally through bank erosion.



High

May 17, 2007

III

F

Fair

Very High










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

43

0.5375

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 12









Total Score 128

0.64Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem133.Bridge


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Starts in South Newfane at the confluence with the Rock and continues south .44 miles

ADS, CH








Stream Sensitivity





Addradation is the dominant adjustment process.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Good

High







7.2 Channel Aggradation 13 Other No



Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

54

0.675

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 14









Total Score 145

0.725Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem149.Bridge


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: South Newfane Village to covered bridge in Williamsville.

ADS, JC

T02.05 CSegment:







Stream Sensitivity





Minor widening and degradation are the dominant adjustment processes.



High

May 17, 2007

I

F

Good

Moderate










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

57

0.7125

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 16









Total Score 109

0.545Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: In middle of reach at riprapped and over widened area adjacent to road.

ADS, SH

T02.05 BSegment:







Stream Sensitivity





Planform is the dominant adjustment process.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Extreme










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

48

0.6

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 14









Total Score 145

0.725Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: South Newfane village to covered bridge west of Williamsville.

ADS, JC

T02.05 ASegment:







Stream Sensitivity





Minor degradation and widening.



High

May 17, 2007

I

F

Good

Moderate










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

57

0.7125

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 14









Total Score 141

0.705Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem87.5Bridge


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: From covered bridge west of Williamsville to village.

ADS, JC

T02.04 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity





Planform and widening are the dominant adjustment processes.



High

May 17, 2007

III

F

Fair

High










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

39

0.4875

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 16









Total Score 122

0.61Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem76.0Bridge


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: In Village of Williamsville.

ADS, JC, SH

T02.03 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity





Aggradation and planform are the dominant adjustment processes on this reach.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Extreme


1.6 Grade Controls



GPSTaken




Score STD Historic





Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

41

0.5125

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 18









Total Score 133

0.665Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Just east of Williamsville and Williamsville bridge.

ADS, JC

T02.02 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity





The reach is in minor aggradation with historic degradation and widening.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

Very High


1.6 Grade Controls



GPSTaken


Score STD Historic





Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

44

0.55

Score


6.2 Embeddedness 18









Total Score 158

0.79Habitat Rating

Floodprone


Constriction?

GPS

Taken?

Photo

Taken?Type Width

Problem150.Bridge


Yes


Rain:

Reach #

Observers:

Segment Location: Williamsville Station 1.5 miles upstream.

ADS, JC

T02.01 0Segment:







Stream Sensitivity





The reach is aggrading with historic degradation and widening.



High

May 17, 2007

IV

F

Fair

High










Total Score

Geomorphic Rating

38

0.475


Appendix C – Data CD


Appendix D – QA/QC Report

Stream Name Rock River Watershed West River Date 18-May-07

QA Team Leader Amy Sheldon Organization/AgencyLandslide, Inc.

ANR Team Leader Shannon Pytlik

Phase 2 � �

QA �

�None

Phase 1 Step

Number

Tool used to

Collect Data

Confidence

Level

Date

Complete Date Udated

Date of Local

QA Team

Review

Date of State

QA Review

Step 1

Visual

observations;

tape measure;

rod High Sept. 2006 January, 2007 February, 2007

Step 2

Observations,

rod, tape,

ruler, digital

camera. High Sept. 2006 January, 2007 February, 2007

Step 3

Visual

observations. High Sept. 2006 January, 2007 February, 2007

Step 4

GPS, digital

camera, visual

obs. High Sept. 2006 January, 2007 February, 2007

Step 5 Visual obs. High Sept. 2006 January, 2007 February, 2007



Other protocols used.

Comments

See QA/QC report

regarding RAF & glacial

terraces.

Height of eroding banks

was not collected.

Phase 2 Quality Assurance Worksheet

Check one or more boxes to

indicate the types of ANR

sponsored training received

by field team members.

Segment/Reach sketch and map

documentation completed

Phase 1 Assessment used in Phase 2

ANR SGA Handbook Protocols and Databases

used exclusively.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Amy Sheldon, Landslide Natural Resource Planning

FR: Shannon Pytlik, Agency of Natural Resources, River Management Section

DATE: February 25, 2007

RE: Rock River Phase 2 QA Report

Hi Amy – The project wide general comments are on the first pages. Reach specific comments

on following pages.

No dredging is noted in the entire data set for the Rock River. The Phase 1 report notes that the

mainstem was dredged and one specific site on the mainstem just upstream of Williamsville

(seems like T2.04), yet nothing is indexed in Phase 2?

The only reach that I have information for dredging is T2.04 and that is from an interview. I did

not see “evidence of removal of sediments and other material from the channel”(P55 of P2

Protocols) or I would have noted it.

We look for brief notes describing the reach and a SGA narrative. Only a few reaches have

adequate notes to get an idea of what is going on or any peculiarities.

I have these in the draft report and will add them to the DMS.

In general the cross sections did not extend far enough into the valley to characterize the streams

relationship with old terraces and the valley walls.

I have added valley walls and terraces.

Recently Abandoned Floodplain seems to be an issue in this data set. Recently abandoned

floodplains are not shown as a feature on cross sections and should be since they are a major

feature in the SGA. This is one of the most important pieces of data collected during the Phase

2. A lot of the data is based on this number and how it relates to the bankful elevation.

Do you have this data in your paper copy of the cross sections?

I have reviewed the RAF’s extensively on my own and with you. I have added them to the cross

sections and made changes as noted below. I am looking forward to a field visit with you and

George this spring to evaluate the RAF’s.

Can it be added to the cross sections?

Yes. It is done.

In most of the reaches I noticed you had the RAF the same as the “bank height” in the cross

section. These are not the same thing. You can have no RAF and then it is the same as the

bankful elevation, resulting in a incision ratio of 1. You will have to re-evaluate all of RAF and

see if that impacts the Degradation scores.

How confident are you on your bankful elevations and your RAF’s?

I am very confident in my field measurements. I spent a day with you early on in my field work

(August 16th

) on the Rock and you and I did cross sections together on T2.01, T2.03, T2.05B. I

also spent two days in the field with Ty later in the summer on the New Haven Tribs and my

measurements were not corrected or questioned by either of you at the time they were taken.

A lot hinge on these numbers and you seem to have a lot of incision and STD’s to F’s. It is

certainly possible, but I want to make sure you are confident in this representation of the

watershed. The RAF’s specifically make me nervous because they coincide with your TOB and

they don’t always in reality. Maybe we need to do a field day and go back and double check

some of the cross sections?

We have discussed this issue extensively. In general, this river is very wide and has very likely

experienced a great deal of channel moving, which would result in incision. I have looked at

historical topographic maps and there are numerous places the river was pushed to the side of the

valley. I will include these maps in my report. Also – upon further consideration, I think the

road bed has been raised in a number of places where we have changed the RAF to BFK. The

valleys are generally narrow and the roads are often adjacent to the stream.

I wonder how much of the incision is recent and how much was due to the stream cutting

through the glacial fluvial soils thousands of years ago. Especially since they appear to be fairly

stable with no erosion. Did you look into the glacial history for the region? Are there old glacial

terraces in this basin that you were confusing with the RAF?

I have looked at the source material for the soils in the river corridors. There is a fair amount of

alluvium in the valleys.

When to select poor for the overall adjustment: In order for the RGA to be forced to poor you

have to have BOTH the highlighted boxes checked, except for Degradation in which case you

only need one. This is a problem on a lot of reaches where you had poor for only one of the top

2 boxes and selected 5 as the score. These will all have to be re-evaluated.

I did think these were the same (only one poor = poor overall). A note on the field form would

help a lot (EITHER on the line between the first two steps for degradation and BOTH on the line

between the first two steps for the rest would be a helpful reminder. I have made the necessary

changes.

I noticed you have NA noted for riffle types on F stream types (T2.07 & T2.08, maybe others?).

I would expect the riffles to be eroded. They certainly area applicable on reference c stream

types.

I have checked them all and made appropriate changes. Thank you.

Pebble counts don’t work the way you entered them into the spreadsheet. Data should either be

collected with all of the categories or not entered into the spreadsheet.

This was suggested by either Shayne or Ty in your absence as the best way to enter the data. I

have deleted the pebble count data from the cross section worksheets.

Reach Specific Comments

T02.01

Since this stream is incised and wide it should be in stage 3 or 4 of CEM.

I have changed it to IV since there are numerous side bars, steep riffles, two flood chutes and

three islands. Aggradation is the current dominant adjustment process.

Cross sections do not extend far enough into the valley to get an idea of entrenchment and

relationship with the valley. If the 9.4 is the low bank height than is that a flat terrace? Yes. If it

is then you will need to have the cross section extend beyond that point to show the feature. I

have added it. You have 9.4 as both the TOB and RAF? How was this low bank height

selected? Is it a feature that the stream use to access at bankful and now does not access? Yes.

You might recall it was the trail/old road bed that we walked to the site on. The valley wall is

adjacent to it. The left bank is the valley wall.

Head cuts indicate active incision, yet you indicate historic?

These are all steep riffles, not head cuts.

Based on the incision ratio I would call this an F stream type and have a STD of C to F.

With entrenchment coming in at 1.4 and reference stream type being a B, I kept it B.

What evidence do you have that the stream would be a plane bed by reference? Maybe the Phase

1 ST was wrong and should be updated.

I already changed reference to riffle pool. I’m not sure what data you are looking at but I just

double checked the DMS and it has P1 and P2 as riffle pool.

T2.02

What is the human caused change in valley width? This is only applicable where the valley is

reduced by a human made feature in the valley.

There is a town road to year round houses along the entire right bank of this reach.

You have this reach as actively widening in stage III with no erosion. Is this possible?

No. The widening is historic. I have changed it to stage IV.

Where is the RAF in the cross section? If this is a feature then it should be in the cross section. I

have added the RAF to the cross section. Right top of bank is a low terrace with houses and a

road on it that the stream does not access it at this time.

How was this number determined?

It is the low terrace that the stream is not accessing today.

T2.03

An incision ratio of almost 2 in reference condition for degradation is inconsistent.

You and I did this cross section together. There is a note saying “NO RAF” and bankful has

been entered.

Planform of 5 with practically no erosion? You say “low to moderate” for erosion in Planform

RGA, yet practically none indexed? Maybe this is a typo because you have Good, Poor,

Reference, Reference and yet it is a 5?

Same error with the little black boxes at the top of the form – I thought one put it into poor. The

number is adjusted in the DMS.

What is the human caused change in valley width?

The road.

This is a C in Phase 1 and you have it as an F in Phase 2, yet no STD? Is this a reference F? If

so it needs to change in the Phase 1 DMS. I see your note that it may be a reference F, either

change the Phase 1 to an F or have a STD in Phase 2 so they are consistent. Whichever one you

decide is more accurate for this reach.

I think this is reference C that is in major adjustment from having been dammed. It is currently

over-widened, aggrading and has two big flood chutes

Again, how was the RAF determined? On this reach it corresponds with the FPA (it does?) but

they are very different pieces of data. Is this an abandoned terrace that is just not shown on the

cross section?

We determined out in the field that there was no RAF on this reach. It has been corrected.

Dredging noted in Phase 1 data for this reach.

I did not see “evidence of removal of sediments and other material from the channel”(P55 of P2

Protocols) or I would have noted it.

T02.04

The entrenchment has a +/- 0.2 so this could be an F as well. What made you decide on a B?

I made this a B because the reach is moderately entrenched, not entrenched but after our

conversation, I am good with our change to F.

For RGA Widening Row 1, why didn’t you sent poor since the w/d ratio is 48? Why did you

select 5 with a good, fair, fair, fair, reference? None of them are in poor and yet you select poor?

Maybe the Row 1 is a typo and you meant to select poor?


number is adjusted in the DMS. The Geomorphic Assessment was also changed for Planform

for the same reason.

If the stream has incised it cannot be the D CEM. This STD was created to explain systems that

do not go through the F CEM due to some bed resistance.

I used the D model because I’m thinking it was a C that went to B, is wide and moderately

entrenched. Perhaps the language in Appendix C “Channel Evolution Models” could be changed

from “In some situations” to something more definitive if the direction for its use as it relates to

bed resistance is that strong. I changed it to F III.

With both widening and planform in poor I would expect more erosion.

23% of the left bank is eroding and there are two gullies and a mass failure.

T02.05A

What is the human caused change in valley width.

None for this segment – it is changed in the DMS.

T02.05B

What is the human caused change in valley width.

The road.

What is the “other” aggradation STD?

Step 7.2 in the DMS has none for STD. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

Planform score changed to 8 from 5.

T02.05C

On the reports I printed a while ago the constriction is noted on A, but in the DMS is it now

under C. Is this something you fixed? I just checked and it is already fixed – thanks!

T02.05-S1.01

What is the other for STD? This should be in the notes.

Riffle pool to plane bed.

Why did you select 5 for the aggradation when you have Poor, G, R, G, R, G?


number is adjusted to 15 in the DMS.

Abandoned floodplain not shown in the cross section as a bench. Where did this number come

from?

It is now labeled on the cross section.

T02.05-S1.02

Why the D CEM? Looks like F, I to me.

Changed to III as it is entrenched, widening, and migrating laterally.

Great cross section, this is what we are looking for. Except we also need the abandoned

floodplain noted in the cross section. Again, it does not show up as a bench or anything. What

is this feature?

LTOB – it is now labeled.

Cross section listed as “A” in excel. This could be confusing in the future can you change it to

0?

No. The spreadsheet is locked with segments pre-set.

What is an “hx cchannel”?

Abandoned channel.

T02.05-S1.03

Why the D CEM? Looks like F, I to me.

I have a IV F on my data sheet and in the SGA. This has a stream type departure C to F with

aggradation and planform as the dominant adjustment processes.

I would call this an F stream type since the entrenchment has a +/- 0.2.

Changed.

Head cut indicates active incision.

These are all steep riffles.

Seems like you may be using the “bank height” as the RAF elevation? These are not the same

thing.

In this case, there is a distinct RAF which is now labeled on the cross section.

Cross section says “A” yet no B, should be 0.

The spreadsheet is locked with segments pre-set.


I would like to know what indicators you are looking for for dredging. I saw no evidence of bar

scalping or equipment in the channel.

T02.05-S1.04

Cross section says “A” yet no B, should be 0.

The spreadsheet is locked with segments pre-set.

Again, the bank height is not the same as the RAF!

In this case, the RAF is the same as the RTOB. I have added information to the cross section to

show the abandoned channel.

Good cross section, extends from VW to VW.

T02.05-S1.05

An incision ratio of >3 on a reference B stream type is unlikely. Are you sure the feature you

called the RAF was a feature the stream once had access to? You can have no RAF and then it is

the same as the bankful elevation, resulting in a incision ratio of 1. Again, the bank height is not

the same as the RAF, ever!

RAF and low bank height can be the same feature and often are in this watershed. Because this

is a B stream type and there are only pockets of alluvium shown on the soils map, I have changed

the RAF to bankful for this reach. Due to entrenchment of 1.4 the reach remains a “poor” in

degradation.

What is the “other” for STD on degradation?

It won’t let me have “none” with a poor rating. .

Head cut indicates active incision.

These are steep riffles.

T02.06 A

Is this a reference C or B?

C.

This came out as a 5 in Degradation because of the incision ratio, but the RAF is wrong. You

will have to re-evaluate all of RAF and see if that impacts the Degradation scores.

This reach is incised and entrenched and it is located in alluvium. Perhaps this is one we can

visit with George Springston.

Why is this a 5 for Aggradation with a P, G, G, R, R?



Great cross section other than RAF not included!

It’s been added.

T02.06 B

Great cross section other than RAF not included!

Added.

Why CEM stage of %? Does not appear to have widened and created a lower floodplain.

Maybe stage 1 if truly incised?

It is in stage IV of F.

T2.07

Typo in cross section, TE should be TW. Done. Please fix this (and A to 0) and re-upload. The

spread sheet is locked for editing.

Is the RAF a feature, just looks like a point on a slope?

It is a flat terrace.

T02.08

Channel slope of almost 4%, yet you have it as a sub-class slope of C?

Phase 1 error that was just caught.

Due to a lot of aggradation, I would say stage IV rather than III.

Yes.

T02.09


The only dredging I have confirmed, through an interview with Merrill Mundell, is on T08.04

just u/s of Williamsville.

More likely stage IV than III.

Yes.

Would this really be a C by reference or was Phase 1 wrong?

I re-calculated the slope using my GPS points and the slope is actually 3.1% though the valley

type in Phase 1 is Broad, I found it to be Narrowly Confined, due to the presence of the town

road. You and I changed the reference stream type to B.

Huge amount of incision noted. Is the RAF noted really an abandoned floodplain? Did the

stream have access to the floodplain 13 feet above the current bed elevation?

The RAF has been changed to BKF.

T02.10

Is the TOB really the RAF or an abandoned glacial feature? Looks really high to be an RAF and

for a stream with a high slope?

RAF changed to BKF.

Practically no erosion with lots of planform adjustment? Seems inconsistent?

Comments changed.

Incision seems really high for a reference B?

RAF changed to BKF.

T02.11


Maybe at the upstream end of the reach, above the second gorge where there is easy access,

though I didn’t see any evidence.

You noted gorges in the notes, how long are they? Should they be segmented out?

I had long discussions with Ty about segmenting this reach. The gorges are at the extreme

downstream end and then again pretty high up so the entire reach is affected by them.

Shannon – when we reviewed this reach together, we decided it did not have an RAF and

changed the degradation score and other related scores. The entrenchment on this reach is 1.2 so

the degradation score must remain poor. I have changed the related data back to reflect this.

Stream type departure had to be changed to “other” because the DMS will not allow a “poor”

without a stream type departure.

T02.11-S1.01


T02.12


There is a lot of berming in this reach, but again, I didn’t see anything like dredging.

You note stage V, is this reach stable with new floodplain? New bench not shown in the cross

section. Just looks wide.

Changed to aggradation, planform and stage IV.

Incision Ratio is not reasonable.

We reviewed this one together and agreed it is incised.

T2.11-S1.01 A, B & C

Great notes! This is what we need for each reach so people get an idea of what is going on when

they look at the data sheet. Is it possible you selected a low bankful?

Segments A & C are incised. Segment B is not and I would like to re-visit it in the spring.

Great cross section from VW to VW!

These segments have a slope of 6%, yet IR’s of almost 3?

T2.03-S2.01

IR is not reasonable.

I have changed the RAF to BKF. It is difficult to tell on this one and I would like to bring

George here. The road bed may have been elevated on the LB.

Great notes!

Thanks.

Widening should not be in poor with a P, R, P, G, R? Especially with practically no erosion?



T02.03-S2.02

Cross section does not extend enough. Should not end at the RAF? Where is the valley wall? Is

this reach really that incised?

Cross section goes from VW to VW. This issue is with the RAF.

rock river watershed stream geomorphic assessment …landslide, inc. – rock river phase 2 stream...

Documents